UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES DP Barcodes: D307105 PC Code: 080801 Date: 11/ 16/ 2004 SUBJECT: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Reregistration of Ametryn Use on Corn, Pineapple and Sugarcane ( Revised)

TO: Mark Howard, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Division William Donovan Health Effects Division FROM: Kevin Costello, Geologist, RAPL Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

THRU: R. David Jones, Ph. D. Senior Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

The eligibility of the use of the triazine herbicide ametryn on sugarcane, corn and pineapple for reregistration is currently under consideration. This document provides drinking water estimated concentrations ( DWECs) for these uses for the human health dietary risk assessment for ametryn. These DWECs are derived by using chemical and agronomic data as input to the simulation models PRZM/ EXAMS and SCI GROW. Available surface water and ground water monitoring data are described to put the results of both the modeling and monitoring in context.

The potential contaminants of concern in this assessment are parent ametryn and the degradates 2 amino 4 isopropylamino 6 methylthio s triazine ( GS 11354) and 2 ethylamino 4 amino 6 methylthio s triazine ( GS 11355). These metabolites, which are  2  primarily formed through aerobic soil metabolism of ametryn, were identified in coordination with the Health Effects Division as being of possible toxicological concern based on their structural similarity to parent ametryn.

A complete environmental fate database is not available for these degradates, although the results of terrestrial field dissipation studies suggest that some of these degradates may be more mobile than parent ametryn. In the absence of data, the persistence of ametryn and these methylthio degradates are considered together to derive an aerobic soil metabolism half life for " total toxic residues". In the absence of specific mobility data for all of the degradates, the total residues are assumed to be as mobile as parent ametryn, which makes up the bulk of the residues identified in the aerobic soil metabolism study.

Choice of Modeling Scenarios The Tier II surface water screening models PRZM and EXAMS were used to derive DWECs for the use of ametryn on sugarcane and corn ( See Table 1). Modeling scenarios were chosen for this assessment based on nationwide distribution of ametryn use. These scenarios are intended to represent ametryn use on the crop in locations simulated, and to serve as surrogates for other areas in which those crops are grown.

Table 1. Ametryn Use Patterns Crop Max Single Rate ( Lbs/ ai/ A) Applications/ Yr Maximum Lbs / A/ Yr/

Corn ( Field, Sweet, Pop) 2.0 1 2.0 Pineapple* 7.2 NS 7.2 Sugarcane ( state dependent) 8.0** 5 16.0 State Use Programs:

F L 1.2 3 3.6 LA 2/ 2.4/ 2.4/ 2.4/ 2.4 5 11.6 TX 2/ 2/ 2 3 6.0 HI 7.2/ 2.4/ 2.4 3 12.0 PR 8/ 4/ 4 3 16.0 Sugarcane Retreatment Intervals: 30 days where specified.

* Pineapple Typical use in Hawaii, per Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, is a 1.6 lbs ai/ A application preplant or immediately postplant plus additional 1.6 lbs ai/ A applications prior to flower induction; Syngenta supports this practice within the 7.2 lbs ai/ A/ yr/ crop maximum. ** Maximum varies by Application and by state NS = Not Specified on Labeling Ametryn is applied to corn mostly in southeastern states, particularly North Carolina and South Carolina, with some use in Georgia and Texas. Small amounts are also used in midwestern states ( WI, OH, IL). Therefore, corn scenarios for eastern and  3  western North Carolina were chosen to reflect the predominant use of ametryn on corn in the southeastern United States.

Sugarcane use occurs mostly in Florida, with some use also in Hawaii, Texas and Louisiana. Standard scenarios are available for Florida and Louisiana sugarcane, and the simulations with these scenarios modeled ametryn applications according to the labels for those states. As described below, drinking water in Hawaii is predominantly derived from ground water, and the DWEC calculated with the screening model SCIGROW is recommended for Hawaii sugarcane. Surface water is the main source of drinking water in the Texas sugarcane region; the DWECs from the Florida and Louisiana scenarios are recommended as surrogates for sugarcane in Texas.

Ametryn is applied to pineapple in Hawaii and in Puerto Rico. The ground water DWEC from SCI GROW is recommended for Hawaii pineapple. No PRZM scenario is currently available for Puerto Rico. The DWECs from the Florida and Louisiana sugarcane scenarios are recommended as screening surrogates for pineapple in Puerto Rico, since the higher concentrations from these scenarios make them more conservative surrogates than the corn scenarios, and because the weather data for Louisiana and Florida should be better surrogates for Puerto Rico than data from North Carolina.

When estimating surface water DWEC's, model output concentrations are adjusted with percent cropped area factors ( PCAs). The PCAs used represent the maximum areal fraction that any HUC 8 watershed in the United States is planted to the crop of interested. The PCA for corn is 0.46, which is consistent with a HUC 8 watershed in Illinois. For crops which do not currently have a crop specific PCA, the national default of 0.87 is used, which represents the HUC 8 watershed with the greatest areal fraction planted to any crop nationally.

Because the use areas for the three crops treated with ametryn are distinct from one another, they are unlikely to be co located. Therefore, the DWECs for each crop can be considered separately for the human dietary risk assessment. The DWECs below for the scenarios modeled reflect values from PRZM/ EXAMS which have been adjusted with regional percent cropped area factors. The regional PCAs used represent the maximum areal fraction that any HUC 8 watershed in the particular major basin ( HUC 2 watershed) of the United States is planted to the crop of interest.

As described above, the sugarcane simulations for Louisiana and Florida are recommended as surrogates for sugarcane in Texas and Puerto Rico, and the corn simulations in North Carolina are recommended as surrogates for the less common corn use elsewhere in the country. The regional PCA factors for Florida, Louisiana and North Carolina do not apply to those outside areas. Therefore, the DWECs adjusted with the default national PCAs should be used for dietary exposure assessments for these other areas.  4  Modeling Input Parameters Input parameters used in PRZM/ EXAMS are described in Table 2. Input parameters used in SCI GROW are described in Table 3. These estimates are put into context in the report below through characterization of the hydrology of major ametryn use areas, and discussion of the results of surface water and ground water monitoring for ametryn residues.

Table 2. PRZM ( v. <IP_ADDRESS>) and EXAMS ( v. 2.98.04) input parameter values and results for ametryn Parameter Value Comment Source Application Rate ( lb a. i./ A) variable see Table 2 label Number of Applications variable see Table 2 label Interval between Applications ( days) variable see Table 2 label Molecular Weight ( g/ mol) 227.3 product chemistry Vapor Pressure ( torr) 2.74 e 6 product chemistry Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient ( K oc; mL/ g) 371 Average of four values MRID 44651883 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half life ( days) ( total toxic residues) 273 3x value of 91 days for single soil MRID 41752401 Wetted in? no label Depth of Incorporation ( inches) not incorporated label Method of Application aerialsugarcane ground corn label Percent Cropped Area corn 46% sugarcane and pineapple 87% national default for sugarcane and pineapple EFED policy Solubility in Water ( ppm) 1850 10 x solubility product chemistry Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life ( days) 546 2x aerobic soil no study submitted  5  Hydrolysis Half life @ pH 7 ( days) stable MRID 40885812 Aquatic Photolysis Half life @ pH 7 ( days) 368 MRID 41169601 Table 3. SCI GROW2 input parameter values for ametryn.

Parameter Value Source Maximum Application Rate ( lb a. i./ A/ application) corn: 2 pineapple: 7.2 sugarcane: varies by state Maximum label rates, Product label for ` Evik DF' ( Syngenta)

Maximum Number of Applications per Year corn: 1 pineapple: 1 sugarcane: varies by state Maximum label rates, Product label for ` Evik DF' ( Syngenta)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Halflife ( days) 91 ( total toxic residues) MRID 41752401 Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient ( K oc) 96 Input value is lowest value of four reported values in MRID 40995813 as per input parameter guidance Modeling Results The values below in Table 4 reflect values from PRZM/ EXAMS which have been adjusted with regional PCA's. These DWEC's should be used in the human dietary risk assessment for the scenarios modeled, which represent a substantial portion of ametryn used in the United States.

Table 4. Surface water DWECs based on ametryn use on sugarcane and corn, adjusted for regional PCAs.

Scenario Region Regional PCA 1 in 10 year acute ( ppb) 1 in 10 year chronic ( ppb) 30 year daily average ( ppb)

Florida sugarcane South Atlantic Gulf 38% 96 19 12 Louisiana sugarcane Lower Mississippi 85% 362 92 73 Eastern North Carolina corn South Atlantic Gulf 38% 23 7.2 4.7 Western North Carolina corn Tennessee 38% 22 7.6 5.4  6  The DWEC's below are adusted with national scale PCA's, and are recommended for ametryn uses for which the modeled scenarios serve as surrogates ( such as Texas sugarcane, midwest corn, and Puerto Rico sugarcane and pineapple). The PCAs used represent the maximum areal fraction that any HUC 8 watershed in the United States is planted to the crop of interested. The PCA for corn is 0.46, which is consistent with a HUC 8 watershed in Illinois. Since a crop specific PCA has not been derived for sugarcane, the national default of 0.87 is used, which represents the HUC 8 watershed with the greatest areal fraction planted to any crop.

Table 5. Surface water EEC's for drinking water exposure assessment based on ametryn use on sugarcane and corn, adjusted with national PCA's Scenario Surrogate for: 1 in 10 year acute ( ppb) 1 in 10 year chronic ( ppb) 30 year daily average ( ppb)

Florida sugarcane Puerto Rico crops 219 44 27 Louisiana sugarcane Puerto Rico crops 371 94 75 Eastern North Carolina corn Midwestern corn 28 8.8 5.7 Western North Carolina corn Midwestern corn 26 9.2 6.6 Ground Water The Tier I ground water screening model SCI GROW was used to estimate potential exposure concentrations in drinking water derived from ground water. The SCI GROW value is specifically recommended for use as the DWEC for ametryn use on pineapple in Hawaii. Pineapple is grown on the islands of Oahu and Maui. Ground water is the sole source of drinking water on Oahu, and is the dominant source of drinking water on Maui. The Iao and Waihee aquifer areas, on the eastern side of West Maui Mountain, are the principal source of domestic water supply for the island of Maui. The DWEC calculated with SCI GROW for the pineapple use is 9.4 ppb.

Ground water concentrations shown below for sugarcane vary for different states because application rates on the product label are different for each state, as described in Table 1.  7  Table 5. Ground water EEC's for drinking water exposure assessment based on ametryn use on sugarcane and corn.

Scenario Ground water concentration ( ppb)

Florida sugarcane 4.7 Louisiana sugarcane 15.1 Texas sugarcane 7.8 Puerto Rico sugarcane 21 Hawaii sugarcane 15.6 Hawaii pineapple 9.4 Corn 2.6 Surface Water and Ground Water Monitoring Since ametryn was not included among the analytes in the National Water Quality Assessment NAWQA program, surface water monitoring data are limited. Some monitoring data are available, but the frequency of the sampling is not sufficient for the estimation of potential acute exposure, nor extensive enough to allow a conservative estimate of potential chronic exposure. The monitoring data and hydrology information described below is important, however, to help put the modeling results described above in perspective.

Florida Sugarcane Sugarcane in Florida is grown in the Everglades Agricultural Area, which is located to the south and east of Lake Okeechobee, and north of the Florida Everglades ( see Figure 3). The South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD), the State of Florida, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) have worked to maintain the viability of the EAA as cropland and to control and reduce transport of agricultural chemicals ( particularly phosphorus) into Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. This is being accomplished through the adoption of Best Management Practices ( BMPs) in agriculture, and through the extensive engineering involved in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ( CERP).

While the Best Management Practices are intended mainly for sediment control and phosphorus reduction, they may also serve to reduce pesticide transport. For instance, farmers in south Florida pump water from their fields during a normal rainy season ( June to November) into drainage canals to prevent damage to their crops ( Ken Todd, Water Resource Manager Palm Beach County, personal communication, 2002). One BMP recommends waiting for the first inch of rainfall to occur before pumping, to  8  reduce particulates and ( to some extent) phosphorus discharge. BMPs which extend holding time, or settle organic matter from agricultural water, can allow time for pesticide degradation or reduce transport of entrained pesticides.

Water management to achieve these goals is accomplished through pumping of water into and out of drainage canals. In order to maintain the viability of sugarcane in the EAA, the water table must be maintained at a depth of at least 6 to 12 inches below ground surface. Ground water pumped from the EAA is directed through a series of private canals to four main public drainage canals which bring water out of the EAA: the Miami Canal, the North New River Canal, the Hillsboro Canal, and the West Palm Beach Canal.

The water from each of the public drainage canals is directed through constructed wetlands known as Stormwater Treatment Areas ( STAs). Each STA is a collection of constructed wetlands built to meet phosphorous loading goals established by the CERP. The retarded flow of water through the STAs, although designed to reduce phosphorous levels, should also reduce the load of pesticides leaving the EAA as well by providing more time for the pesticides to degrade. Since ametryn degrades slowly relative to water movements in the canals, and it does not bind too strongly to sediments, this may be a less efficient removal mechanism for ametryn than for phosphorous.

The SFWMD includes pesticides among the analytes it monitors in surface water samples taken at the inflow and outflow points of the public canals. Monitoring results from quarterly sampling between 1998 and 2003 indicate that, in spite travel through canals of the EAA, or constructed wetlands, ametryn is still detectable in the water of the drainage canals.

The concentrations reported in these monitoring studies are significantly less than those resulting from PRZM EXAMS simulation modeling. This can be accounted for, in part, by the dissimilarity of the PRZM/ EXAMS reservoir modeling scenario to the hydrology of the EAA. Some reduction in concentrations would be expected from flow to and through the STAs. Also, the monitoring of ametryn by the SFWMD is for parent only, and does not include the metabolites of potential toxicological concern.

In addition, while the modeling results appear to be a conservative estimate, the lesser concentrations in the monitoring may also be due to the frequency of sampling in the monitoring program. The DWEC's from the modeling reported above are the 1 in 10 year values derived from modeling of daily concentrations. Quarterly sampling in a monitoring program is not sufficient to establish potential acute drinking water concentrations of ametryn. By possibly missing peak concentrations of ametryn in surface water, chronic concentrations that could be calculated with the monitoring data should also be considered a rough estimate.  9  Figure 3: The Everglades Agricultural Area  10  The highest concentrations detected in the quarterly sampling ( up to 0.7 ppb) occurred during the winter and early spring. Ametryn is applied as a post emergent pesticide to sugarcane, and would most likely be applied during that period. Florida sugarcane is planted from September to February, although emergence of the ratoon crops could lead to treatment at other times. The use closure memo for ametryn indicated that treatment of sugarcane in Florida occurs 3 times per year, with a minimum 30 day interval.

Another uncertainty in the drinking water assessment for ametryn use on Florida sugarcane stems from the location of drinking water sources in relation to the EAA. Drainage canals from sugarcane fields are not used directly for drinking water, but water from drainage canals eventually feeds water bodies used in southern Florida for drinking water supply.

The Everglades Restoration Plan includes Water Preserve Areas in the current Water Conservation Areas, which will be used in part to redirect water away from the coast, restoring flow through the Everglades. The city of West Palm Beach derives part of its water supply from the drainage canal L 8, which passes through the Water Conservation Area. Water from this canal is diverted to M Canal, which travels through 25 square miles of water catchment and wetlands and into Clear Lake, where the CWS for West Palm Beach is located. The distance from L 8 to Clear Lake is about 22 miles.

Three community water systems ( CWS) draw from the southern end of Lake Okeechobee. Water flows from Lake Okeechobee predominantly through the Caloosahatchee River to the west, the St. Lucie River to the east, and south through the EAA toward the Everglades ( South Florida Water Management District, http:// www. sfwmd. gov/ org/ wrp/ wrp_ okee/ 2_ wrp_ okee_ info/ maps/ homepagemap. html). The South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) tightly manages water in this area to direct water where it is needed or for flood control. This can at times also mean water will be flushed back from the EAA into Lake Okeechobee.

Louisiana Sugarcane According to the 1997 USDA Census of Agriculture, and information provided by registrant Syngenta, there is little use of ametryn on sugarcane in Louisiana. Monitoring studies support the supposition that concentrations of herbicides in surface water would decrease with decreasing use ( Scribner, et al, 2000). The results of the PRZM/ EXAMS modeling are an indication of the concentrations that could occur if the chemical is used according to the label, and may be conservative on a regional scale if few growers use ametryn on sugarcane in Louisiana.  11  A study of herbicide runoff from treated fields in Louisiana indicated that the soils and weather in the area are conducive to offsite transport ( Bengston and Selim, 2001). The study investigated the runoff from three types of applications of metribuzin and triazine herbicide atrazine between 1994 to 1999. The application types were a high rate broadcast ( 1.8 lb for atrazine, 2.0 for metribuzin), a " standard" application of half those rates in a 36 inch band over the row, and a low rate of 0.6 lb and 0.7 lb, respectively, in a 24 inch band. Atrazine was applied to the test field in January and December, 1994. The average rate of atrazine loss in runoff for these treatments was 7.8, 5.7 and 5.0 percent of applied active ingredient for the high, standard and low application rates, respectively. Metribuzin was applied in the spring of 1994, 1995 and 1997, and had average loss in runoff of 3.5, 2.9 and 1.2 percent of applied active ingredient for the high, standard and low application rates, respectively.

It is not clear that ametryn loss would be equivalent to that of atrazine, although both chemicals are triazine herbicides. The recent interim RED for atrazine describes it as being similar in persistence to ametryn ( aerobic soil metabolism half life of " 3 to 4 months" compared to 84 days for ametryn), but slightly more mobile ( K d values < 1.0 for sand, sandy loam and loam soils, 2.49 on clay).

There are a number of community water supplies which draw from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers in the sugarcane production area of southern Louisiana ( See Figure 4). Transport of pesticides in surface water is complicated by leveeing of the Mississippi River in Louisiana and the system of drainage canals in southern Louisiana. While agricultural areas around tributaries can potentially contribute to contamination of drinking water supplies, drainage from fields along leveed portions of the Mississippi River may follow the longer path through managed drainage canals to a potential drinking water supply.

Residents of the western portion of the Louisiana sugarcane area draw drinking water from the ground water of the Chicot aquifer of southwest Louisiana. This aquifer is a " sole source" aquifer that is susceptible to contamination ( Figure 5).  12  Figure 4: Sugarcane production in Louisiana vs. ground water as drinking water supply In order to comply with TMDL requirements, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry ( LDAF) conducted surface water monitoring in 2002 and 2003 in the Barataria Basin, a major sugarcane production area. However, ametryn was not included among the analytes. Atrazine, another triazine herbicide, is " the most commonly used herbicide in sugarcane culture," and was detected at all 10 sites sampled. The highest concentrations found in monthly sampling were those most directly correlated with the times of use on sugarcane.  13  Figure 5: Sole source aquifers of EPA Region 6  14  Hawaii Pineapples Pineapple is produced primarily on the islands of Oahu and Maui. Public water supplies in Oahu are provided entirely by ground water. The deep volcanic rock aquifer in central Oahu and Honolulu supplies more than 90 percent of the island's public water supply and is designated as a Sole Source Drinking Water Aquifer by the USEPA. The aquifer is highly permeable and unconfined except near the coast ( see map, p. 20), making it vulnerable to contamination despite depths to water of hundreds of feet in most places. ( NAWQA Circular 1239).

Most public drinking water on Maui is also derived from ground water. The USGS reports that " in 1998, about 76 percent of the ground water supplied by the County of Maui Department of Water Supply ( DWS) to the island was from the Iao aquifer". A portion of the land which overlies the Iao aquifer, which lies on the flank of the West Maui Volcano, consists of sloping alluvial and colluvial plains extending east from the mountains. In the past, sugarcane was grown on these plains, " but presently the land is used for macadamia nuts, pineapple, papaya, or left fallow" ( Meyer and Presley, 2001).

Ametryn was included among the analytes in a ground water monitoring study in pineapple growing areas. Samples were collected by the Ciba Geigy Corporation from 1992 to 1994, and analyzed for residues of atrazine and ametryn. Ametryn degradates GS 11354, GS 26831 and rarely GS 11355 were also included as analytes. Ametryn was rarely detected in ground water samples, although the maximum concentration detected was 7.6 ppb. Degradates of ametryn were not detected in any sample. The total toxic residue concentration calculated by SCI GROW for this annual application rate is 9.8 ppb.

Ground water in Hawaii is particularly vulnerable to contamination from agricultural chemicals. The USGS NAWQA program reports that, " although overlying rock is weathered to depths of 50   200 feet ( Hunt, 1996), this soil and clay rich overburden does not prevent downward migration of chemicals applied or spilled at land surface." Agricultural soils in Hawaii are often oxisols, which are usually well drained, in spite of what is frequently a clay or clay loam soil texture.

A recent ground water monitoring program on Oahu confirmed the correlation of land use with the types of organic chemicals detected. However, radioisotope dating indicated that most ground waters in the 30 public supply wells sampled were last in contact with air ( at or above the water table) sometime between 1950 and 1980 ( Hunt, 2004). Therefore, detections of herbicides in present and former agricultural areas reflect pesticide applications of several decades past. Three herbicides introduced to  15  the island since 1990 were only detected in samples from 15 monitoring wells sampled to study contamination of more recently recharged ground water.

Ametryn was not included among the analytes in this study. Atrazine, however, was detected in 57 percent of the public supply wells, and 93 percent of the monitoring wells. Atrazine degradates were also detected in as many as 23% of the supply wells, and 47% of the monitoring wells. Most other pesticides detected followed the pattern of a higher detection rate in the shallower monitoring wells. The results of this study suggest that use of herbicides such as ametryn may lead to long term, lowconcentration contamination of public supply wells on Oahu.

REFERENCES Battaglin, WA, Thurman, EM, Kalkhoff, SJ and Porter, SD, 2003. Herbicides and Transformation Products in Surface Waters of the Midwestern United States. J. Am. Water Resources Ass., 39( 4): 743 756.

Bengston, R. and Selim, M., 2001 Herbicide Losses in Surface Runoff. Louisiana Agriculture, vol 44, no. 4. http:// www. getitgrowing. com/ Communications/ LouisianaAgriculture/ agmag/ 44_ 4_ article s/ herbicide. asp Brasher, AMD, 2003. Impacts of Human Disturbances on Biotic Communities in Hawaiian Streams. BioSceince 53( 11): 1052  1060.

Hunt, CD, 2004. Ground Water Quality and its Relation to Land Use on Oahu, Hawaii, 2000 01. USGS WRIR 03 4305, Honolulu Hawaii, 76 pp.

Klasner, FL and Mikami, CD, 2003. Land Use on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii, 1998. USGS WRIR 02 4301, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20 pp.

Oki, DS and Brasher, AMD, 2003. Environmental Setting and the Effects of Natural and Human Related Factors on Water Quality and Aquatic Biota, Oahu, Hawaii. USGS WRIR 03 4156, Honolulu Hawaii, 98 pp.

USDA, 2000. Crop Profile for Sugarcane in Hawaii.


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46685-46689]
[DOCID:fr11au08-126]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58306; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With
the Proposed Acquisition of The Amex Membership Corporation

August 5, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on July 31, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Exchange Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange, a Delaware Corporation and registered national
securities exchange is submitting this proposed rule change to the
Commission in connection with the proposed acquisition of The Amex
Membership Corporation (``MC''), a New York not-for-profit corporation
that owns 100% (99% directly and 1% indirectly through a wholly owned
subsidiary) of American Stock Exchange LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and registered national securities exchange
(``Amex''), by NYSE Euronext, the Delaware corporation that indirectly
owns 100% of the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change to the
Commission in connection with the proposed acquisition of MC, a New
York not-for-profit corporation that owns 100% of Amex, by NYSE
Euronext. The proposed acquisition will occur pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 17, 2008 (as it
may be amended from time to time, the ``Merger Agreement''), by and
among NYSE Euronext, Amsterdam Merger Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext formed
by NYSE Euronext in connection with the Mergers (``Merger Sub''), MC,
AMC Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of MC (``AMCAS''), American Stock Exchange Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of MC created by MC
in connection with the Mergers (``Holdings''), Amex, which is 99
percent owned by MC and 1 percent owned by AMCAS, and American Stock
Exchange 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Holdings formed by Holdings in connection with the
Mergers (``Amex Merger Sub'').
    Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, MC will demutualize and
NYSE Euronext will acquire the business of MC and its subsidiaries
through a series of mergers (the ``Mergers''). Following the Mergers,
Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext and a successor
to MC and AMCAS, will directly own 100% of Amex Merger Sub, which will
be the successor to Amex and a registered national securities exchange.
It is intended that Amex Merger Sub will be renamed ``NYSE Alternext
U.S. LLC'' (and therefore is referred to in this document as ``NYSE
Alternext U.S.''). The proposed rule change will not become operative
until completion of the Internal Merger (as defined below).
Corporate Structure
    Immediately following the NYSE/Amex Merger, NYSE Euronext will
contribute 100% of the limited liability company interest of Merger Sub
to NYSE Group, Inc. (``NYSE Group'') (such contribution, the
``Contribution''), causing Merger Sub to become a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of NYSE Group. Immediately following the Contribution,
Merger Sub will merge with and into NYSE Alternext U.S., a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Merger Sub (``Internal Merger''). As a
result of the Contribution and the Internal Merger, NYSE Alternext U.S.
will become a direct wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Group.
Organizational Documents of NYSE Euronext
    Currently the NYSE Euronext organizational documents provide
certain protections to the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange LLC
that are designed to protect and facilitate their self-regulatory
functions. In general, the organizational documents of NYSE Euronext
are being amended to provide similar protections to NYSE Alternext U.S.
as are currently provided to the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange
LLC under those documents. In addition, in the proposed new Director
Independence Policy for NYSE Euronext directors, the three-year
retrospective period (``look-back period'') over which directors'
relationships with members of the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange
LLC are reviewed (which following the Mergers will apply equally to
NYSE Alternext U.S.) has been reduced to one year. The Exchange
believes that this reduction will be beneficial in expanding NYSE
Euronext's pool of eligible director candidates with knowledge of the
exchange industry, while still maintaining sufficient director
independence.
    The amended and restated bylaws of NYSE Euronext are being amended
to:
     Include NYSE Alternext U.S. in the definition of ``U.S.
Regulated Subsidiaries,'' which currently includes New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc., NYSE Arca,
L.L.C., the Exchange, and

NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and to provide that the term ``U.S. Regulated
Subsidiaries'' includes those entities listed or their successors, but
only so long as they continue to be controlled, directly or indirectly,
by NYSE Euronext;
     Provide that the provisions referencing New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc., NYSE Arca,
L.L.C., the Exchange, and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. apply with respect
to those entities or their successors, but only so long as they or
their successors continue to be controlled, directly or indirectly, by
NYSE Euronext;
     Provide the same protection to confidential information
pertaining to the self-regulatory function of NYSE Alternext U.S. or
its successor (including but not limited to disciplinary matters,
trading data, trading practices and audit information) contained in the
books and records of any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, that shall
come into the possession of NYSE Euronext, as is currently provided
under the bylaws of NYSE Euronext with respect such confidential
information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc., the
Exchange, and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc., but only to the extent that
NYSE Alternext U.S. and its successor continues to be controlled,
directly or indirectly by NYSE Euronext;
     Provide that, subject to its fiduciary obligations under
applicable law, for so long as NYSE Euronext directly or indirectly
controls NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), the board of directors
of NYSE Euronext shall not adopt any resolution pursuant to clause (2)
of Section 1(B) of Article V of the certificate of incorporation of
NYSE Euronext unless the board of Directors of NYSE Euronext shall have
determined that:
     In the case of a resolution to approve the exercise of
voting rights in excess of 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled
to be cast on such matter, neither such Person nor any of its Related
Persons (as defined in the certificate of incorporation of NYSE
Euronext) is, with respect to NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), a
``member,'' as defined in Sections 3(a)(3)(A)(i), 3(a)(3)(A)(ii),
3(a)(3)(A)(iii) and 3(a)(3)(A)(iv) of the Exchange Act \5\ (a ``NYSE
Alternext Member'') (any such person that is a ``Related Person'' (as
defined in the Certificate of incorporation of NYSE Euronext) of such
NYSE Alternext Member is also deemed to be a ``NYSE Alternext Member''
for the purposes of the proposed Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of
NYSE Euronext, as the context may require); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In the case of a resolution to approve the entering into
of an agreement, plan or other arrangement under circumstances that
would result in shares of stock of NYSE Euronext that would be subject
to such agreement, plan or other arrangement not being voted on any
matter, or the withholding of any proxy relating thereto, where the
effect of such agreement, plan or other arrangement would be to enable
any person, but for Article V of the certificate of incorporation of
NYSE Euronext, either alone or together with its Related Persons, to
vote, possess the right to vote or cause the voting of shares of stock
of NYSE Euronext that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes
entitled to be cast on such matter (assuming that all shares of stock
of NYSE Euronext that are subject to such agreement, plan or other
arrangement are not outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such
matter), neither such Person nor any of its Related Persons is, with
respect to NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), a NYSE Alternext
Member;
     Provide that, subject to its fiduciary obligations under
applicable law, for so long as NYSE Euronext directly or indirectly
controls NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), the board of directors
of NYSE Euronext shall not adopt any resolution pursuant to clause (2)
of Section 2(B) of Article V of the certificate of incorporation of
NYSE Euronext (which relates to NYSE Euronext board of directors
approval of ownership of NYSE Euronext capital stock in excess of 20%),
unless the board of directors of NYSE Euronext shall have determined
that neither such Person nor any of its Related Persons is, with
respect to NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), a NYSE Alternext
Member;
     Provide that, for so long as NYSE Euronext controls any of
the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, any amendment to or repeal of the
bylaws of NYSE Euronext must either be (i) filed with or filed with and
approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act \6\ and
the rules promulgated thereunder or (ii) submitted to the boards of
directors of the New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE
Regulation, Inc., the Exchange, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and NYSE
Alternext U.S. or the boards of directors of their successors, in each
case only to the extent that such entity continues to be controlled
directly or indirectly by the NYSE Euronext, and if any or all of such
boards of directors shall determine that such amendment or repeal must
be filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission under
Section 19 of the Exchange Act \7\ and the rules promulgated thereunder
before such amendment or repeal may be effectuated, then such amendment
or repeal shall not be effectuated until filed with or filed with and
approved by the Commission, as the case may be;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Provide that, for as long as NYSE Euronext Controls any
European Market Subsidiary (as defined in the bylaws of NYSE Euronext),
any amendment to or repeal of the bylaws of NYSE Euronext must either
be (i) filed with or filed with and approved by a European Regulator
(as defined in the bylaws of NYSE Euronext) under European Exchange
Regulations (as defined in the bylaws of NYSE Euronext) or (ii)
submitted to the boards of directors of the European Market
Subsidiaries and, if any or all of such boards of directors shall
determine that such amendment or repeal must be filed with or filed
with and approved by a European Regulator under European Exchange
Regulations before such amendment or repeal may be effectuated, then
such amendment or repeal shall not be effectuated until filed with or
filed with and approved by the relevant European Regulator(s);
     Provide that so long as NYSE Euronext shall control,
directly or indirectly, NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), the
board of directors of NYSE Euronext shall not adopt any resolution to
repeal or amend any provision of the Certificate of Incorporation
unless such amendment or repeal shall either (i) be filed with or filed
with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange
Act \8\ and the rules promulgated thereunder or (ii) be submitted to
the board of directors of NYSE Alternext U.S. (or the board of
directors of its successor), and if such board of directors determines
that such amendment or repeal must be filed with or filed with and
approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act \9\ and
the rules promulgated thereunder before such amendment or repeal may be
effectuated, then such amendment or repeal shall not be effectuated
until filed

with or filed with and approved by the Commission, as the case may be;
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Remove or update certain references to the Combination
Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2006, as amended and restated as of
November 24, 2006, by and among the NYSE Euronext, NYSE Group, Inc.,
Euronext N.V. and Jefferson Merger Sub, Inc.
    The proposed new independence policy of the NYSE Euronext board of
directors will be substantially similar to the current Commission-
approved independence policy of the NYSE Euronext board of
directors,\10\ except that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55293 (February 14,
2007), 72 FR 8033 (February 22, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The independence policy provision relating to
relationships with New York Stock Exchange LLC and Exchange market
participants have been expanded to equally apply to relationships with
NYSE Alternext U.S. market participants (or the market participants of
its successor);
     Instead of relying on the definition of ``member'' or
``member organization'' or similar terms in the rules of the individual
exchanges, the proposed new independence policy relies on the
definition of ``member'' in Sections 3(a)(3)(A)(i), 3(a)(3)(A)(ii),
3(a)(3)(A)(iii) and 3(a)(3)(A)(iv) of the Exchange Act.\11\ This
technical change is designed to harmonize the use of those terms in the
proposed new independence policy with respect to each of the Exchange,
New York Stock Exchange LLC, and NYSE Alternext U.S. and to simplify
the language of the policy;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Independence requirements for the NYSE Alternext U.S.
board of directors (or the board of directors of its successor) have
been added that are the same as those for New York Stock Exchange LLC's
board of directors;
     The ``look back period'' with respect to directors'
relationships with members of the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange
LLC (which following the Mergers will apply equally to NYSE Alternext
U.S.) has been reduced from three years to one year;
     All references to New York Stock Exchange LLC, the
Exchange, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc., and NYSE Alternext U.S. shall mean
each of those entities or its successor; and
     The provision providing for a transition period so that
the independence requirements of the NYSE Euronext director
independence policy would not apply to the European Persons on the NYSE
Euronext board of directors until the annual meeting of NYSE Euronext
stockholders in 2008 has been deleted since the revised NYSE Euronext
Independence Policy is expected to go into effect after the meeting of
NYSE Euronext Stockholders in 2008.
Organizational Documents of NYSE Group
    Currently the NYSE Group organizational documents provide certain
protections to the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange LLC that are
designed to protect and facilitate their self-regulatory functions. In
general, the organizational documents of NYSE Group are being amended
to provide similar protections to NYSE Alternext U.S. as are currently
provided to the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange LLC under those
documents.
    The amended and restated certificate of incorporation of NYSE Group
is being amended to:
     Provide that, subject to its fiduciary obligations under
applicable law, for so long as NYSE Group directly or indirectly
controls NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), the board of directors
of NYSE Group shall not adopt any resolution pursuant to clause (ii) of
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of Article IV of the certificate of incorporation of
NYSE Group unless the board of Directors of NYSE Group shall have
determined that:
     In the case of a resolution to approve the exercise of
voting rights in excess of 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled
to be cast on such matter, neither such Person nor any of its Related
Persons (as defined in the certificate of incorporation of NYSE Group)
is, with respect to NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), a
``member,'' as defined in Sections 3(a)(3)(A)(i), 3(a)(3)(A)(ii),
3(a)(3)(A)(iii) and (3)(a)(3)(A)(iv) of the Exchange Act \12\) (a
``NYSE Alternext Member'') (any such person that is a Related Person
(as defined in the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of NYSE Group) of such NYSE Alternext Member is also
deemed to be an ``NYSE Alternext Member'' for purposes of the proposed
Second Amended and Restate Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group,
as the context may require); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In the case of a resolution to approve the entering into
of an agreement, plan or other arrangement under circumstances that
would result in shares of stock of NYSE Group that would be subject to
such agreement, plan or other arrangement not being voted on any
matter, or the withholding of any proxy relating thereto, where the
effect of such agreement, plan or other arrangement would be to enable
any person, but for Article IV of the certificate of incorporation of
NYSE Group, either alone or together with its Related Persons, to vote,
possess the right to vote or cause the voting of shares of stock of
NYSE Group that would exceed 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled
to be cast on such matter (assuming that all shares of stock of NYSE
Group that are subject to such agreement, plan or other arrangement are
not outstanding votes entitled to be cast on such matter), neither such
Person nor any of its Related Persons is, with respect to NYSE
Alternext U.S. (or its successor), a NYSE Alternext Member;
     Provide that, subject to its fiduciary obligations under
applicable law, for so long as NYSE Group directly or indirectly
controls NYSE Alternext U.S. (or its successor), the board of directors
of NYSE Group shall not adopt any resolution pursuant to clause (ii) of
Section 4(b)(2)(B) of Article IV of the certificate of incorporation of
NYSE Group (which relates to NYSE Group board of directors approval of
ownership of NYSE Group capital stock in excess of 20%), unless the
board of directors of NYSE Group shall have determined that neither
such Person nor any of its Related Persons is, with respect to NYSE
Alternext U.S. (or its successor), a NYSE Alternext Member;
     Include NYSE Alternext U.S. in the definition of
``Regulated Subsidiaries,'' which currently includes New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc., NYSE Arca,
L.L.C., the Exchange, and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and to provide that
the term ``Regulated Subsidiaries'' includes those entities listed or
their successors, but only so long as they continue to be controlled,
directly or indirectly, by NYSE Group;
     Provide the same protections to all confidential
information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of NYSE
Alternext U.S. as are currently provided under the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group to confidential information
pertaining to the self regulatory function of New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc., the Exchange, and NYSE
Arca Equities, Inc.;
     Provide that any amendment to or repeal of the certificate
of incorporation of NYSE Group must either be (i) filed with or filed
with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the

Exchange Act \13\ and the rules promulgated thereunder or (ii)
submitted to the boards of directors of New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc., the Exchange, NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. and NYSE Alternext U.S. or the boards of directors of
their successors, in each case only to the extent that such entity
continues to be controlled directly or indirectly by the NYSE Group,
and if any or all of such boards of directors shall determine that such
amendment or repeal must be filed with or filed with and approved by
the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act \14\ and the rules
promulgated thereunder before such amendment or repeal may be
effectuated, then such amendment or repeal shall not be effectuated
until filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission, as the
case may be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amended and restated bylaws of NYSE Group are being amended to:
     Provide that any amendment to or repeal of the bylaws of
NYSE Group must either be (i) filed with or filed with and approved by
the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder or (ii) submitted to the boards of directors of
New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Market, Inc., NYSE Regulation, Inc.,
the Exchange, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. and NYSE Alternext U.S. or the
boards of directors of their successors, in each case only to the
extent that such entity continues to be controlled directly or
indirectly by the NYSE Group, and if any or all of such boards of
directors shall determine that such amendment or repeal must be filed
with or filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of
the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder before such
amendment or repeal may be effectuated, then such amendment or repeal
shall not be effectuated until filed with or filed with and approved by
the Commission, as the case may be.
Trust Agreement of the NYSE Group Trust I
    The Trust Agreement is being amended to make certain technical
changes designed to better provide NYSE Alternext U.S. with the same
protections against certain material adverse changes in European Law
that it currently provides for the Exchange and New York Stock Exchange
LLC.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\15\
in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange
Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\ As required under Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Exchange Act,\18\ the Exchange provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing of
the proposed rule change. The Exchange represents that the proposed
rule change is substantially the same as the proposed rule change filed
by New York Stock Exchange LLC related to the acquisition of MC by NYSE
Euronext (the ``NYSE Rule Filing'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ SR-NYSE-2008-60. Specifically, the Exchange represents that
each exhibit filed with the proposed rule filing is identical to the
corresponding exhibit filed with the NYSE Rule Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-82 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-82. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-82 and should
be submitted on or before September 2, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18422 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32197-32198]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14326]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The date of November 15, 2019 has been established for the FIRM
and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Richmond County, Georgia (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1835
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Augusta........................  Planning and Development
                                          Department, 535 Telfair
                                          Street, Suite 300, Augusta, GA
                                          30901.
City of Blythe.........................  Blythe Planning and Development
                                          Department, 535 Telfair
                                          Street, Suite 300, Augusta, GA
                                          30901.
City of Hephzibah......................  Hephzibah Planning and
                                          Development Department, 535
                                          Telfair Street, Suite 300,
                                          Augusta, GA 30901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mercer County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1851
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Princeton......................  City Hall, 507 West Main
                                          Street, Princeton, MO 64673.

Unincorporated Areas of Mercer County..  Mercer County Courthouse, 802
                                          East Main Street, Princeton,
                                          MO 64673.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Putnam County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1851
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Powersville....................  City Hall, 305 Main Street,
                                          Powersville, MO 64672.
City of Unionville.....................  City Hall, 1611 Grant Street,
                                          Unionville, MO 63565.
Unincorporated Areas of Putnam County..  Putnam County Courthouse, 1601
                                          Main Street, Unionville, MO
                                          63565.
Village of Lucerne.....................  Putnam County Courthouse, 1601
                                          Main Street, Unionville, MO
                                          63565.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Sullivan County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1851
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Milan..........................  City Hall, 212 East 2nd Street,
                                          Milan, MO 63556.
City of Newtown........................  City Hall, 127 West Broadway,
                                          Newtown, MO 64667.
City of Pollock........................  Sullivan County Courthouse, 109
                                          North Main Street, Milan, MO
                                          63556.
Unincorporated Areas of Sullivan County  Sullivan County Courthouse, 109
                                          North Main Street, Milan, MO
                                          63556.
Village of Osgood......................  Sullivan County Courthouse, 109
                                          North Main Street, Milan, MO
                                          63556.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Musselshell County, Montana and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1842
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Roundup........................  City Office, 34 3rd Avenue
                                          West, Roundup, MT 59072.
Unincorporated Areas of Musselshell      Musselshell County Emergency
 County.                                  Operations Center, 704 1st
                                          Street East, Roundup, MT
                                          59072.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Petroleum County, Montana and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1842
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Petroleum        Petroleum County Courthouse,
 County.                                  Clerk and Recorder Office, 302
                                          East Main Street, Winnett, MT
                                          59087.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rosebud County, Montana and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1842
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Rosebud County.  Rosebud County Clerk and
                                          Recorders Office, 1200 Main
                                          Street, Forsyth, MT 59327.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Harris County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1551
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Houston........................  Public Works and Engineering
                                          Department, Floodplain
                                          Management Office, 1002
                                          Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor,
                                          Houston, Texas 77002.
Unincorporated Areas of Harris County..  Harris County Engineering
                                          Department, Permit Division,
                                          10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite
                                          120, Houston, Texas 77092.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-14326 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53584]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23136]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0965]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the I Street Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.4, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the bridge owner to conduct preventative
maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. on November 6,
2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0965, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Union Pacific Railroad Company has
requested a temporary change to the operation of the I Street
Drawbridge, mile 59.4, over the Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA.
The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway
is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. on November 6, 2018, to allow the bridge owner to
perform necessary preventative maintenance on the center lens of the
drawspan. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the
waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were
raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in the operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 18, 2018.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-23136 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20418-20420]
[DOCID:fr19ap10-104]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61883; File No. SR-BATS-2010-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

April 9, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a
member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c).
While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be
effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on April 1,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange effective April 1, 2010, in order to: (i) Increase the
fee charged by the Exchange for its ``CYCLE'' and ``RECYCLE'' routing
strategies from $0.0027 per share to $0.0028 per share; (ii) amend the
fees for certain destination specific routing options to continue to
offer a ``one under'' pricing model; (iii) adopt pricing for ``BATS +
DART Destination Specific Orders''; and (iv) make other technical
changes to the fee schedule.
(i) Increase in Routing Fees for ``CYCLE'' and ``RECYCLE'' Routing
    Based on increased fees at various market centers to remove
liquidity, the Exchange proposes to modify the fee charged by the
Exchange for its ``CYCLE'' and ``RECYCLE'' routing strategies from
$0.0027 per share to $0.0028 per share. To be consistent with this
change, the Exchange proposes to charge 0.28%, rather than 0.27%, of
the total dollar value of the execution for any security (all Tapes)
priced under $1.00 per share that is routed away from the Exchange
through CYCLE or RECYCLE.
(ii) One Under Pricing for Destination Specific Orders
    The Exchange has previously provided a discounted price fee for
Destination Specific Orders routed to certain of the largest market
centers measured by volume (NYSE, NYSE Arca and NASDAQ), which, in each
instance has been $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such
market centers by the Exchange than such market centers currently
charge for removing liquidity (referred to by the Exchange as ``One
Under'' pricing). Based on changes in

pricing at such market centers, BATS is proposing various changes to
its prices for Destination Specific Orders to align its fees so they
are $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to such market centers as
of April 1, 2010. Specifically, because NASDAQ has eliminated the
distinction in its fees between Tape A, B, and C securities the
Exchange proposes to eliminate that same distinction for BATS + NASDAQ
Destination Specific Orders. Thus, the Exchange proposes to normalize
the fee charged for BATS + NASDAQ Destination Specific Orders executed
at NASDAQ at $0.0029 per share. Also, based on a change to pricing at
NYSE Arca, the Exchange proposes to increase the charge from $0.0027
per share to $0.0028 per share for BATS + NYSE Arca Destination
Specific Orders executed at NYSE Arca in Tape A and C securities. The
Exchange will retain the fee of $0.0027 per share for BATS + NYSE Arca
Destination Specific Orders executed at NYSE Arca in Tape B securities.
Each of the changes described above will result in the Exchange
charging $0.0001 less per share for orders routed to certain market
centers as Destination Specific Orders.
(iii) Pricing for BATS + DART Destination Specific Orders
    Effective April 1, 2010, the Exchange will offer functionality that
will permit Users to designate orders to route to various Alternative
Trading Systems selected by the Exchange after first being exposed to
the BATS Book (a ``BATS + DART Destination Specific Order''). In
conjunction with this new functionality, the Exchange is proposing to
amend the fee schedule to include pricing for BATS + DART Destination
Specific Orders. The Exchange currently offers DART routing as part of
its general best execution routing. Consistent with the current pricing
for the DART best execution routing functionality, the Exchange
proposes to charge $0.0020 per share for a BATS + DART Destination
Specific Order executed by an Alternative Trading System.
(iv) Technical Changes to Fee Schedule
    The Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error on the fee
schedule. Also, the Exchange proposes to add a clarifying parenthetical
to its description of physical connection charges, which are charged
based on ``pairs.'' As it does within the Equities Pricing/Port Fees
section of the fee schedule, the Exchange proposes to make clear that a
pair is comprised of one port at site of the Exchange's primary data
center and one port at the site of the Exchange's secondary data
center.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In addition, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to
all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2010-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2010-007. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2010-007 and should be
submitted on or before May 10, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8860 Filed 4-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40531-40532]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14461]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9999-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Risk Management Program Requirements and
Petitions To Modify the List of Regulated Substances Under the Clean
Air Act (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is submitting an
information collection request (ICR), Risk Management Program
Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances
under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (EPA ICR Number 1656.18, OMB
Control Number 2050-0144) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through November 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register on December 14, 2021 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 8,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-
2015-0725, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or
by mail to: (1) EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and
(2) OMB via email to [email protected]. Address comments to
OMB Desk Officer for EPA. EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket without change, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity,
threats, information claimed to Confidential Business Information
(CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Hoffman, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8794; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is closed
to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further
information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and
the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Abstract: This information collection is authorized by the
following Clean Air Act (CAA) sections: for onsite documentation of
Risk Management Plans (RMPs), section 112(r)(7)(B)(i) and (ii); for
submitting an RMP, section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii); and, for onsite
documentation and submittal of RMPs, section 114(a)(1). The agencies
implementing the Risk Management Program use RMPs to evaluate
compliance with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 CFR
part 68 and to identify sources for inspection that may pose
significant risks to the community. Citizens may use the information to
assess and address chemical hazards in their communities and to respond
appropriately in the event of a release of a regulated substance.
    This request for comments relates to the renewal of OMB Control
Number 2050-0144, which covers the Risk Management Program and is being
consolidated with EPA ICR Number OMB Control Number 2050-0216, which
represents the Risk Management Program information collection
requirements impacted by the Final Risk Management Program
Reconsideration Rule (Reconsideration Rule), published on December 19,
2019 (84 FR 69834). The Reconsideration Rule modified changes made to
the Risk Management Program by the Final Risk Management Program
Amendments Rule (Amendments Rule), published on January 13, 2017 (82 FR
4594). The consolidation covers information collection requirements
from the Amendments Rule that were retained or retained with
modification in the Reconsideration Rule. Once this renewal ICR is
approved, OMB Control Number 2050-0216 will be discontinued.
    EPA received no comments on the ICR. The final ICR package is being
submitted to OMB for review and approval for a 30-day review period.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Stationary sources that manufacture,
react, mix, store, or use substances in processes that require
equipment designed, constructed, installed, operated, or maintained in
specific ways to prevent accidental releases and ensure safe
operations.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under CAA section
112(r)(7)(B)(iii).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14,216.
    Frequency of response: Sources are required to register and submit
an RMP once every five years, unless there are significant changes in
the information provided.
    Total estimated burden: 704,005 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $50,147,128 (per year), which includes
$31,044 annual operation & maintenance costs. No capital costs are
associated with this ICR.
    Changes in Estimates: This ICR estimates a total annual respondent
burden of 704,005 hours, which is a decrease of 69,872 burden hours for
all sources and States compared to the previous two ICRs being
consolidated here. Three primary reasons account for this decrease in
burden. First, the burden varies from one ICR renewal to the next due
to different resubmission deadlines based on the sources' RMP re-
submission deadlines and other regulatory deadlines. Therefore, the
burden changes each year depending on how many sources must submit
their RMP and comply with certain prevention program requirements.
Second, the number of sources subject to the regulations fluctuates
regularly and is slightly lower than in the previous ICR (12,995
sources in the previous ICR versus 12,341 sources in this ICR).
Finally, the burden for rule familiarization under the Amendments rule
and the Reconsideration rule is a one-time burden that was incurred at
the time of implementation of the Reconsideration rule and is not
included in this consolidated ICR. However, rule familiarization with
the RMP requirements in general is retained for new sources in this
consolidated ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-14461 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P