[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79748-79750]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32749]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65986; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-175]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Strike Price Intervals for SLV
and USO Options

 December 16, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 7, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend
Commentary .05 of Rule 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) to
allow trading of options on iShares[supreg] Silver Trust \3\ and United
States Oil Fund at $0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price
is less than $75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See email from Jurij Trypupenko, Associate General Counsel,
the NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., to Drew J. Zimmerman, confirming that
``iShares[supreg]'' is a registered trademark of BlackRock
Institutional Trust Company, N.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's
Web site at www.sec.gov, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Commentary .05 of Rule 1012
to allow trading of options on iShares[supreg] Silver Trust (``SLV'' or
``SLV Trust'') and United States Oil Fund (``USO'' or ``USO Fund'') at
$0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price is less than $75.
The Underlying ETFs
    Two popular exchange traded funds (``ETFs''), which are known on
the Exchange as Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, underlie SLV and USO
options.\4\ SLV and USO options are currently traded on several
exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As of July 31, 2011, the average daily volume (``ADV'') over
the previous three calendar months was 60,087,539 for SLV and
13,881,380 for USO.
    \5\ These exchanges include, in addition to Phlx: NYSEAmex
(``Amex''), NYSEArca (``Arca''), BATS Global Markets (``BATS''),
Boston Options Exchange (``BOX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange (``C2''), International Securities
Exchange (``ISE''), and NASDAQ Options Exchange (``NOM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The iShares[supreg] Silver Trust is a grantor trust that is
designed to provide a vehicle for investors to own interests in silver.
The purpose of the SLV Trust is to own silver transferred to the trust
in exchange for shares that are issued by the trust. Each of such
shares represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net
assets of the SLV Trust. The objective of the SLV Trust is

for the value of the iShares[supreg] to reflect, at any given time, the
price of silver owned by the trust at that time.
    The United States Oil Fund is a domestic exchange traded security
designed to track the movements of light, sweet crude oil that is known
as West Texas Intermediate. The investment objective of the USO Fund is
for the changes in percentage terms of its units' net asset value to
reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light,
sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the
changes in the price of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the ``NYMEX''), less USO's
expenses.
    The ETFs underlying SLV and USO options, which are listed on NYSE
Arca, are not affected or changed by this filing.
The Proposal
    Commentary .05(a)(iv) of Rule 1012 currently states that the
interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and
$5 or greater where the strike price is more than $200. This is similar
to the applicable ETF option interval standards of other options
markets.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for example, CBOE Rule 5.5 Interpretation and Policy
.08; and NOM Chapter IV Section 6, Supplementary Material .01 to
Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has recently approved a CBOE proposal to allow $0.50
strike price intervals for options on certain ETFs and individual
equity securities on which CBOE would calculate volatility (known as
``volatility options'').\7\ The Exchange is, in this filing, proposing
$0.50 strike price intervals for options on ETFs similarly to what CBOE
proposed in respect of volatility options. The Exchange notes that its
$0.50 strike price interval proposal is, however, limited in several
respects. First, the proposed $0.50 intervals are limited to only one
type of underlying instrument, namely Exchange-Traded Fund Shares.
Second, the $0.50 intervals are proposed for two option products,
namely iShares[supreg] Silver Trust and United States Oil Fund. And
third, the intervals are limited to strike prices that are less than
$75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64189 (April 5,
2011), 76 FR 20066 (April 11, 2011)(SR-CBOE-008)(order granting
approval of $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals for certain
volatility options where the strike prices are less than $75 and
between $75 and $150, respectively). Other Exchanges have submitted
similar immediately effective proposals. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 64325 (April 22, 2011), 76 FR 23632 (April 27, 2011)
(SR-NYSEAmex-2011-26); 64324 (April 22, 2011), 76 FR 23849 (April
28, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-19); 64359 (April 28, 2011), 76 FR 25390
(May 4, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-27); and 64589 (June 2, 2011), 76 FR
33387 (June 8, 2011)(SR-Phlx-2011-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than options in $0.50 strike price intervals approved for
CBOE as noted, options on ETFs or Exchange Trades Fund Shares trade at
$1 intervals where the strike price is below $200. As demonstrated in
this filing, however, this $1 strike price interval is no longer always
appropriate, and in fact may be counter-productive and more costly, for
ETF option traders and investors that are trying to achieve optimum
trading, hedging, and investing objectives.
    Traders have expressed their belief that the strike price intervals
for SLV and USO options are too coarse, and have asked for the ability
to trade and hedge such options in smaller intervals. The Exchange
believes that reducing these strike price intervals would make
excellent economic sense, would allow better tailored investing and
hedging opportunities, and would potentially enable traders and
investors to save money.
    The number of low-priced strike interval options have [sic]
increased significantly over the last decade, such that now there are
approximately 935 equity options and 225 ETF options listed at $1
strike price intervals.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Figures were based on July 2011 data using symbols with a
2011 expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also, in addition to the newly enabled CBOE $0.50 strike
price options, approximately 19 options listed at $0.50 strike price
intervals pursuant to the $0.50 Strike Program.\9\ Clearly, however,
this is no longer sufficient in the current volatile and economically
challenging environment. Traders and investors are requesting more low-
priced interval ETF options so that they may better tailor investing
and hedging strategies and opportunities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The noted $0.50 intervals were established per the $0.50
Program found in Commentary .05(a)(ii) of Rule 1012. The $0.50
Program has inherent price limitations that make it unsuitable for
SLV and USO options.
    \10\ The Exchange is not aware of any material market
surveillance issues arising because of the $0.50 or $1.00 the strike
price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of example, if an investor wants to gain exposure to the
silver market or hedge his position, he may invest in options on the
iShares[reg] Silver Trust (SLV). Today an investor must choose a strike
price that might lack the precision he is looking for in order to gain
or reduce exposure to the silver market. Thus, an investor executing a
covered call strategy may be looking to sell calls on SLV. Assume the
investor's SLV cost basis is $38.35. The nearest out-of-the-money
strike call is the 39.00 strike, which is 1.69% out of the money. If
the 38.50 strike were available, however, the investor could sell calls
in a strike price only .39% out-of-the-money, thus offering 1.29%
additional risk protection. To an investor writing covered calls on an
equity position, this extra protection could be significant on an
annual basis.
    With United States Oil Fund (USO), a similar lack of precision
exists at the current strike prices. For an investor looking to
purchase out-of-the-money put protection against a USO purchase of
$31.65, the investor must choose the 31.00 strike, which is 2.05% out-
of-the-money. If the 31.50 strike were available, the investor could
avail himself of a superior strike price that is only .47% out of the
money, thus offering 1.58% additional protection. The smaller strike
price offers an increased amount of downside protection to the investor
at a more precisely factored cost for the hedging opportunity.
    Moreover, an investor may want to execute an investment or hedging
strategy whereby the investor would close one position and open another
through use of a complex order. Implementing $0.50 strike intervals
would, again, offer more precision and an opportunity to improve
returns and/or risk protection. Thus, using the previous SLV example,
the investor who purchased SLV at $38.35 and sold the $38.50 call might
later wish to purchase a call to close the original position and roll
into a new position as the stock moves away from the original strike
price. By offering $0.50 strike prices, the investor may be able to
again avail himself of a better return or hedging opportunity.
    The Exchange also believes that with the increase in inter-market
trading and hedging,\11\ the ability to offer potentially similarly-
situated products at more similar strike intervals gains importance.
Thus, options on futures underlying USO and SLV are traded at $0.50 and
lower strike price intervals. Options on USO futures listed for trading
on the NYMEX have $0.50 strike price intervals.\12\ And options on
silver futures listed on NYMEX have strike

price intervals as low as $0.05.\13\ The Exchange is not, in this
filing, proposing to go to sub-$0.50 strike price intervals but is
proposing reasonable, requested, and needed $0.50 intervals only where
the strike price of the underlying is less than $75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Particularly between options markets and futures markets
that also trade options on futures.
    \12\ Per the NYMEX Web site, http://www.cmegroup.com/product-codes-listing/nymex-market.html, options on crude oil futures are
listed nine years forward whereby consecutive months are listed for
the current year and the next five years, and in addition, the June
and December contract months are listed beyond the sixth year.
Additional months will be added on an annual basis after the
December contract expires, so that an additional June and December
contract would be added nine years forward, and the consecutive
months in the sixth calendar year will be filled in.
    \13\ Per the NYMEX Web site, http://www.cmegroup.com/product-codes-listing/nymex-market.html, options on silver futures are
listed for the first three months at strike price intervals of $.05.
An additional ten strike prices will be listed at $.25 increments
above and below the highest and lowest five-cent increment,
respectively, beginning with the strike price evenly divisible by
$.25. For all other trading months, strike prices are at an interval
of $.05, $.10, and $.25 per specified parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By establishing $0.50 strike intervals for SLV and USO options,
investors would have greater flexibility for trading and hedging the
underlying ETFs or hedging market exposure \14\ through establishing
appropriate options positions tailored to meet their investment,
trading and risk profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A trader or investor may, for example, use a commodity-
oriented ETF such as the SLV Trust or USO Fund to counter-balance
(hedge) an equity or ETF position that tends to move inversely to
the price movement of SLV or USO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in terms of housekeeping the Exchange is making non-
substantive changes to Commentary .06 of Rule 1009 to improve its
readability. The Exchange proposes language indicating that Exchange
Trade Fund Shares may represent interests in several listed optionable
trusts, in lieu of current language that shares may be issued by such
trusts.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. This would be achieved by establishing $0.50 strike intervals
for SLV and USO options so that traders, market participants, and
investors in general may have greater flexibility for trading and
hedging the underlying ETFs or hedging market exposure through
establishing appropriate options positions tailored to meet their
investment, trading and risk profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-175 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-Phlx-2011-175. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 the 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-Phlx-2011-175 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32749 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 39)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10411]
[DOCID:fr27fe08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0053; FRL-8534-2]

Clean Air Interstate Rule: Notice of the Filing of Petition for
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the filing of petition for administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On November, 26 2007, Nelson Industrial Steam Company (NISCO)
filed a petition requesting that the Environmental Appeals Board review
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) applicability determination made
on October 22, 2007. In the applicability determination, EPA concluded
that NISCO's Nelson Units 1 and 2 are CAIR SO2,
NOX, and NOX ozone season units because they meet
the criteria for being such CAIR units under regulations of the EPA-
administered CAIR trading programs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the applicability determination, EPA
concluded that NISCO's Nelson Units 1 and 2 are CAIR SO2,
NOX, and NOX ozone season units because they meet
the criteria for being such CAIR units under 40 CFR 97.104, 97.204, and
97.304 of the EPA-administered CAIR trading programs. This appeal was
filed under 40 CFR part 78. Motions for leave to intervene in the
proceeding under 40 CFR 78.11 must be filed by March 28, 2008 with the
Environmental Appeals Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ragan Tate, Attorney-Advisor, Office
of General Counsel (2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel
Rios Building--North, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 21, 2008.
Elizabeth Craig,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. E8-3694 Filed 2-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72583-72584]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-11-000.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc., AEP Generating Company,
Gavin Power, LLC., Darby Power, LLC., Waterford Power, LLC.,
Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of
Jurisdictional Assets Under Section 203 of the FPA of AEP Generation
Resources, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-12-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company.
    Description: Application for Approval under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Treatment of Duquesne Light
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-8-000.
    Applicants: Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-9-000.
    Applicants: Ocean State Power LLC.
    Description: Ocean State Power LLC. Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1910-012; ER10-1911-012.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Duquesne MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-343-007.
    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of CPV Maryland, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-85-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Third Revised ISA No. 2301,
Queue No. AA1-079 to be effective 9/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-86-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to PG&E's WDT LGIA
and SGIA in Compliance With Order Nos. 827 and 828 to be effective 10/
17/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161014-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-87-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order Nos. 827 and 828 Combined
Compliance Filing (Montana OATT) to be effective 10/14/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161014-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-3-000.
    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act of Monongahela Power Company.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5210.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-999-000.
    Applicants: Garnet Solar Power Generation Station 1.
    Description: Refund Report of Garnet Solar Power Generation Station
1 LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/13/16.
    Accession Number: 20161013-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,

service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information,
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 14, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25360 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48174-48175]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 17, 2013, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, Building 31, the Great Room, White
Oak Conference Center (Rm. 1503), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due
to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed
at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the
heading ``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA
White Oak Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus
must enter through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Diane Goyette, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The purpose of the meeting on October 17, 2013, is to
discuss susceptibility interpretive criteria for systemic antibacterial
drugs and for dosing recommendations in product labeling. We will seek
input on the role of pharmacokinetic data in setting susceptibility
interpretive criteria. We will also discuss revising dosing
recommendations in product labeling based on pharmacokinetic data and
clinical safety and efficacy data.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 2, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those individuals interested
in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before September 24, 2013. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably

accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by September 25, 2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Diane Goyette at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 1, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-19036 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 26602]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0058; Notice 2]

Withdrawal of Notice of Receipt of Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: On April 23, 2012, NHTSA inadvertently republished, at 77 FR
24265, a notice that the agency had received a petition for a decision
of inconsequential noncompliance from Toyota Motor Corporation, Inc.,
on behalf of Toyota Corporation and Toyota Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.
NHTSA has withdrawn that notice. The notice of receipt of the petition
was originally published on June 16, 2011 (76 FR 35271), and the
comment period closed on July 18, 2011. NHTSA will soon publish the
notice of the agency's decision on the petition.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: April 26, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-10770 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44377]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2426-000]

SR McKellar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SR McKellar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 9, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 20, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15995 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Information Collection Request

For the Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75

Supporting Statement

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection

1.1  Title of the Information Collection

	Revisions to the Emissions Monitoring Rule under the Acid Rain Program,
NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Programs; Amendments to
the Protocol Gas Verification Program and the Minimum Competency
Requirements for Air Emission Testing, EPA ICR Number 2203.03, OMB
Control Number 2060-0626

1.2  Background

	Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Acid Rain Title)
established goals to reduce annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and placed a national cap on SO2 emissions
beginning in the year 2000.  To ensure compliance with the emissions
reduction requirements and to provide the national consistency needed to
foster the allowance market, Sections 408 and 412 of Title IV require
the designated representative of the owners and operators of each
affected acid rain source to obtain an operating permit for the affected
source and to certify that an approved emissions monitoring system has
been installed and is properly operated at each affected unit's source
of emissions.  In addition, under a Federal NOx Budget Trading Program
developed in conjunction with ozone attainment efforts in the eastern
United States, many additional sources also had to meet similar
requirements as part of a regional emissions trading program.  In May
2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has
broadened the trading program concept to additional sources.

	Emissions monitoring and reporting is the foundation upon which these
allowance trading systems are based.  Without accurate monitoring and
reporting of emissions, the integrity of the allowance system would be
undermined, and there would be no assurance that emissions had been
reduced.

	The legislative requirements in Title IV require all affected Phase I
and Phase II sources to install SO2 and NOx CEM systems, opacity
monitors (COMS), and flow monitors (or approved alternatives).  Affected
gas- and oil-fired units may elect to use approved alternative
monitoring methods that involve fuel flowmeters and fuel sulfur sampling
and analysis.  In addition, peaking units that burn natural gas and/or
fuel oil may use an excepted method for calculating NOx emission rates.
Finally, EPA allows certain low mass emissions (LME) units to use
assumed emission factors together with operational data to calculate
emissions.  EPA has followed similar requirements for new emissions
trading programs.

	Data handling or reporting is required by the law, but not specified.
Under the promulgated regulations, however, EPA imposes data handling,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.  EPA requires that all
affected units required to monitor and report emissions under these
trading programs use a data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) to
record and submit hourly data in an electronic format.  Beginning in
April 2009, electronic reporting is occurring in a recently developed
XML format using EPA's Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System
(ECMPS).  The burden associated with most of the Part 75 requirements,
including DAHS changes needed to use the ECMPS reporting approach, is
currently included in the program-specific ICR for all affected sources.

The rulemaking covered by this ICR outlines new, revised reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for facilities subject to Part 75.  The final
rule requires such facilities to follow requirements that assure that
facilities properly use Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETBs) that meet
certain standards and obtain EPA Protocol gas from vendors that
participate in EPA's Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP).  The PGVP
program requires any participating EPA protocol gas production site to
meet certain requirements and notify the Administrator of its intent to
participate on an annual basis.  Under the quality assurance and quality
control requirements, Part 75 facilities must use AETBs that meet the
revised requirements under Appendix A to Part 75, Section 6.1.2, which
includes a specification that the requirements (e.g., qualification
exams) of ASTM D7036-04 apply to RATAs, stack testing, and NOx emission
testing.  These new requirements clarify the documentation needed for
proof of compliance, including certification, quality assurance, and
quality control record provisions.  Some of these changes may in fact,
reduce the burden for sources and AETBs by streamlining the process.

This ICR covers the specific elements and burden that will result from
the new AETB requirements, including passing the Qualified Stack Test
Individual (QSTI) competency exam and development of a QA manual by
affected stack testing companies, and the new PGVP requirements
including annual notifications and re-notifications that include the
specialty gas company name; the name, e-mail address, and telephone
number of a contact person for that specialty gas company; the name and
address of each participating EPA Protocol gas production site owned or
operated by the specialty gas company; and the name, email address and
phone number of a contact person at each production site.  This ICR also
covers the burden associated with some minor changes to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Part 75.  The cost
incurred on affected sources (or respondents) will be in the form of
increased fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP,
which are expected to pass along the costs necessitated by the new
requirements in the final rule as well as the burden associated with
ensuring that the minor modifications to the requirements for reporting
AETB and PGVP related information to EPA are met on an ongoing basis.
This ICR also covers the one time Agency cost to implement the AETB and
PGVP changes to EPA reporting software, along with a small increase in
Agency burden to manage these programs and track compliance

In addition to covering the increased fees and burden to Part 75 sources
resulting from the revisions to AETB and PGVP requirements, this ICR
also covers some additional reporting requirements.  These include
revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, that add various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the DAHS of Part 75 affected units and are required
to ensure that EPA's new reporting software data requirements are
consistent with the regulatory requirements.

1.3  Information to Be Collected

	The existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 are mandatory for all
sources subject to the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act, as well as certain other emissions trading programs administered by
EPA.  These requirements are covered by existing ICRs for the Acid Rain
Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258) and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570).  The
information requirements in this ICR are based on revisions to the
minimum competency requirements for air emission testing, and reflect
the increase in costs to sources that need to pay for services provided
by stack testers and stack testing companies.  The final rule contains
some minor reporting and recordkeeping provisions related to the AETB
and PGVP requirements, and EPA assumes that there will be a small
additional burden associated with these requirements.  Thus, this ICR
covers:  (1) the incremental increase in testing costs that will be
passed along to sources from air emission testing bodies (i.e., stack
testers and stack testing companies) due to the increased burden
resulting from revisions to the minimum competency requirements for
these companies; (2) the incremental increase in the cost of EPA
Protocol gas cylinders that will be passed along to sources from vendors
participating in PGVP due to the increased burden resulting from
revisions to the cylinder analysis, reporting and notification
requirements for these companies; (3) the one time labor burden for
sources to review the new requirements included in the rule; and (4) the
increase in burden to Part 75 affected sources for complying with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
AETB and PGVP provisions.

	Nearly all burdens associated with Part 72 and 75 requirements for the
affected sources that report data, will remain covered by the underlying
ICRs of the existing programs.  The burden estimates under the existing
program ICRs will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the additional
burdens and costs summarized in this ICR when those existing program
ICRs are updated.  At that time, EPA will re-examine the overall
reporting and recordkeeping burdens generally under Part 75 as revised
by these AETB and PGVP-related requirements.

The annual respondent reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to be 2,254 labor hours, which results in an
associated annual cost of $181,881 and reflects the small amount of time
per year for respondents to review the updated rule requirements.  In
addition, there is an annual operations and maintenance-related cost to
respondents of $1,278,608 due to the expected increase in fees charged
by AETBs and vendors participating in PGVP resulting from the additional
requirements imposed by this final rule.  As such, the total annual cost
to respondents as a result of this final rule is estimated to be
$1,460,489.

2.0  Need For and Use of the Collection

	This section describes EPA's need for the information collection
described above and the legal authority for conducting collections.  The
users of collected information are also described.

2.1  Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 412(a) of Title IV requires the use of CEM systems (or
alternative monitoring systems demonstrated to be equivalent) at each
affected unit's source of emissions.  Section 504(a) of Title V requires
that the results of any required monitoring be submitted to the
permitting authority no less often than every six months.  The
information collection is consistent with satisfying these minimum
statutory requirements.  EPA's model rules for implementation of CAIR
(40 CFR part 96, subparts AA-end) impose comparable requirements.

	Results of continuous emission monitoring system performance tests
allow EPA to certify that monitors perform well enough to produce
accurate emissions data.  Emissions data is used to monitor compliance
with emissions requirements under Title IV and other EPA trading
programs, and to provide a basis for analyzing progress in meeting air
quality objectives.

2.2  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	Data from emissions monitoring is indispensable to successful
implementation of EPA trading programs.  EPA can only monitor compliance
with and enforce these trading programs by having accurate emissions
data for each affected unit.

	Electric utilities, energy consultants, and power marketing companies
can use the emissions data to project future allowance costs and
availability.  Academic institutions can perform data modeling to
evaluate environmental benefits and estimate health effects of emissions
reductions.  EPA and other agencies use the data to try to correlate the
reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions with a decrease in acid precipitation
and ambient air quality pollutant levels, and also to measure the
impacts of other existing and proposed emissions trading programs.  The
emissions data provide the accountability to allow these trading
programs to function without more stringent command and control
approaches.

3.0  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	This section describes:  (1) efforts by EPA to learn whether the
information requested is available from other sources; (2) consultations
with respondents and data users to plan collections, monitor their
usefulness, and minimize the collection burden; (3) effects of less
frequent collections; and (4) any issues related to confidentiality.

3.1  Nonduplication

	All information requested from respondents under this ICR is required
by statute and/or regulation, and the majority of the associated burden
and costs of complying are covered by existing ICRs.  This ICR covers
the need for respondents to review the revisions to Part 75 and update
their recordkeeping and reporting procedures necessitated by changes in
the AETB and PGVP requirements and to pay for any increase in testing
fees or cylinder costs that result from those requirements.

3.2  Consultations

	As part of the ECMPS project, EPA has met with many stakeholders and
received input on the changes under consideration and the timetable for
action.  Stakeholder input is already reflected within the Part 75 rule
revisions that add simple recordkeeping requirements to allow EPA to
verify that: 1) Part 75 affected units are using Qualified Individuals
and AETBs that meet the rule requirements; and 2) Part 75 affected units
are using gas cylinders from EPA Protocol gas production sites that are
participating in the PGVP.  In addition, EPA contacted two stack testing
companies and two gas supply companies to obtain information on the
potential increase in fees and cylinder costs.  The feedback received
from these consultations was incorporated into the estimates for burden
and cost.

3.3  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The general schedule for submissions is established in the underlying
emissions trading programs.  The minimal data elements imposed by these
rule revisions are consistent with the process established and
implemented generally for all other Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting
elements and enables sources to build these minimal requirements into
their basic Part 75 reporting process.

3.4  Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

	Information collected through this activity is not confidential or of a
sensitive nature.

4.0  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	This section lists the major categories of businesses that participate
in EPA-administered emissions trading programs, the data items requested
from program participants, and the activities in which the participants
must engage to assemble or submit the required data items.

4.1  Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Entities regulated by this action primarily are fossil fuel-fired
boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that serve generators that
produce electricity, generate steam, or cogenerate electricity and
steam.  Although for the Acid Rain Program, Part 75 primarily regulates
the electric utility industry, certain state and Federal NOx mass
emission trading programs rely on Subpart H of Part 75, and those
programs may include industrial boilers, turbines, and combined cycle
units, and certain process units from other industries (such as refinery
process heaters or cement kilns).

4.2  Information Requested

	This section lists the data items requested from affected sources for
the collection described in this ICR.  This section also defines the
activities in which respondents must engage to assemble, submit, or
store these data items.

4.2.1  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	There are a small number of new data items requested from respondents
under the final rule.  These include revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and
75.59, that add various data elements that were inadvertently left out
of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final
rule.  These data elements have already been incorporated in the DAHS of
Part 75 affected units and are required to ensure that EPA's new
reporting software data requirements are consistent with the regulatory
requirements.  As such, the incremental changes to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements add only a small additional burden for sources.
This ICR covers the small one-time burden associated with the
respondents' review of the Part 75 revisions included in the final rule,
the small annual burden associated with ensuring compliance with the
additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the marginal
increase in fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP
to respondents (i.e., the increase that can be attributed to the new
testing competency requirements in the rule and the new cylinder
analysis, reporting and notification requirements for PGVP vendors).

	Emissions monitoring requirements specify that affected sources must:
(1) submit a monitoring plan for each affected unit at a source; (2)
submit data for certification of each monitor; and (3) record hourly
operational, pollutant monitor, and flow monitor data for each affected
unit and submit quarterly reports of their emissions data to EPA.
Respondents are required by 40 CFR 75.64 to submit the quarterly
emissions data electronically, by direct electronic submission to EPA,
and must also include a certification statement by the designated
representative of the unit.  Under the 2002 rule revisions, EPA requires
the certification statement to be submitted electronically unless it
approves a hardcopy submission.  All records are to be kept for three
years.

	4.2.2  Respondent Activities

	The primary tasks that are performed by respondents to meet the
emissions monitoring requirements are:  (1) completing and submitting
appropriate monitoring plan forms for each affected source and each
affected unit at a source; (2) conducting tests to certify the operation
of monitors, and submitting test results to EPA; (3) recording hourly
emissions data (this activity generally is performed electronically);
(4) operation and maintenance activities associated with the monitoring,
including quality assurance activities; (5) assuring data quality,
preparing quarterly reports of emissions data and submitting these
reports to EPA; and (6) responding to error messages generated by EPA as
a part of automated data checks or electronic audits, or to field audits
conducted by EPA.  In addition, respondents must purchase the necessary
monitoring hardware (or pay for fuel sampling and analysis in some
cases) and purchase the electronic data reporting software (or software
upgrades).

	This ICR covers the marginal increase in burden associated with
respondents' review of the new requirements in the rule, the marginal
increase in burden associated with ensuring compliance with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., to report AETB and
PGVP-related information along with other emissions data), and the
marginal increase in fees imposed on respondents by AETBs and PGVP
vendors as necessitated by changes in EPA's requirements for
verification of AETB (including Qualified Individuals) and cylinder
analysis, notification and re-notification from vendors participating in
PGVP.

5.0  The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	The first part of this section describes Agency (EPA) activities
related to the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the
information collected from designated representatives of affected
sources that are required to submit monitoring and emissions data.  The
second part describes the information management techniques employed to
increase the efficiency of collections.  The third part discusses the
burden or benefits of the collection activities described in this ICR to
small entities.  The last part outlines the schedule for collecting
information.

5.1  Agency Activities

	The major EPA activities related to emissions monitoring and reporting
include:  (1) reviewing monitoring plans and certification applications;
and (2) processing, reviewing and evaluating reports of quarterly
emissions data from affected units.  These activities are covered by
existing ICRs.  This ICR includes the incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, annually posting cylinder analysis results,
reviewing the reported EPA Protocol gas production sites, and
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA staff
will maintain a list of participating PGVP vendors (and will update that
list on an as-needed, ongoing basis) on EPA's website.

In addition to the annual costs above EPA, will incur a one-time upfront
cost associated with the modification of the agency reporting software
to accommodate and validate the new AETB and PGVP data elements.

5.2  Collection Methodology and Management

	To ensure consistency nationwide and to expedite (1) data entry, (2)
the allocation of allowances, and (3) permit issuance, EPA requires that
standard reporting forms or equivalent formats or standard electronic
reporting formats be used to submit all information to be collected
under this ICR.  In 2008, EPA made revisions to Part 75 monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to accord with the fundamental
changes in EPA's data systems, which are designed to unify and simplify
data reporting, as well as to provide flexibility to respondents.  EPA
also has established the Clean Air Markets Home Page on the Internet,
which includes detailed information collected from emissions reports.
Those without access to the Internet may use the Acid Rain Hotline to
request information.  EPA will maintain a current list of PGVP vendors
that is posted and maintained on EPA's website.  Sources may use this
list to ensure that they are purchasing EPA Protocol gas cylinders from
a participating vendor.

5.3  Small Entity Flexibility

	For purposes of this ICR, a small entity is defined as:  (1) A small
business as defined by the SBA's regulations at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=28040ec960b490ca0aafa21f4
6de6efc&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=16&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=13%20CFR%20121.201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLb
Vlb-zSkAl&_md5=20cdd3754bc5031f8663e9a8648d753a"  13 CFR 121.201 ; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  In determining whether a rule has a significant economic
impact on small entities, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address
regulatory alternatives "which minimize any significant economic impact
of the rule on small entities."    HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=17&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20603&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=7706f7a5b57e6c8ffe73a18a42323923"  5 U.S.C. 603  and
HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=18&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20604&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=d18efe794c4aab9071be778414940e8e"  604 .  Thus, an agency may
certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the small entities can pass
through costs to their customers or rate payers, if the rule generally
does not regulate small entities, or the rule relieves regulatory burden
or otherwise generally has a positive economic effect on all of the
small entities subject to the rule.

The marginal increase in burden that is estimated in this ICR will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Nearly all affected sources are large electric generating
facilities that will face an incremental increase in cost associated
with very small increases in the testing fees charged by AETBs and PGVP
vendors.  For AETBs, the main costs to comply with the ASTM D7036-04
standard are associated with taking a qualified stack test individual
competency exam, and developing or revising a quality assurance manual.
PGVP vendors will be required to have a small number of their cylinders
analyzed each year, and provide annual notification to EPA staff with
basic information on their facility and other information relevant to
the PGVP.  The costs will be passed through to the customers, which are
generally Part 75 affected sources, including large electric utility and
industrial companies.

5.4  Collection Schedule

	Under Part 75, monitoring plans must be submitted initially, and at
subsequent intervals if elements of the monitoring plan change over
time.  Quarterly reports are due for each quarter during the life of
this information collection request.  In addition, Part 75 provides for
notifications to the Agency for semi-annual or annual quality assurance
testing and for situations where a unit will have a revised
certification deadline (for example, notifications of unit start-up for
new units).  This collection schedule is provided for under existing
ICRs.  The minimal AETB and PGVP-related reporting elements as well as
the small number of additional reporting elements in the final rule are
included within this basic Part 75 reporting framework so that sources
can adapt their reports to add these minimal elements easily into their
existing processes.

6.0  Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collections

	This section estimates the annual paperwork burden and cost to sources
for adapting their recordkeeping and reporting systems to the revised
requirements.  The information requirements in this ICR are based on the
revisions to the AETB and PGVP requirements as well as the minor
additions to required reporting data elements.  The estimates in this
ICR reflect the increase in burden to the AETBs and PGVP vendors that
will be necessitated by these new requirements and passed on to Part 75
sources in the form of increased testing fees (i.e., for using AETB’s
that meet ASTM D7036-04) and increased costs associated with EPA
Protocol gas purchases.  In addition, the estimates in this ICR reflect
a small burden to Part 75 sources for a one-time rule review and an
incremental increase in the annual burden associated with minor
modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., for
tracking AETB and PGVP-related information and data).

6.1  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The primary tasks performed by AETBs as a result of the final rule are
to comply with the ASTM D7036-04, which includes:  (1) taking a
qualified stack test individual competency exam; and (2) developing or
revising a quality assurance manual.  The primary tasks performed by
vendors participating in EPA's PGVP as a result of the final rule are to
have a small number of their cylinders analyzed with results reported to
EPA, and provide an annual notification to EPA.  Although AETBs and PGVP
vendors are not considered to be respondents to which the ICR
requirements apply, the resulting increase in costs to comply with these
requirements will be passed on to Part 75 sources in the form of
increased fees.

For affected sources, the final rule contains some minor reporting and
recordkeeping provisions related to the AETB and PGVP requirements and
also requires a small number of other additional data elements to be
reported.  For the AETB-related requirements, sources need to record and
report the following information as provided by the AETB in electronic
and hardcopy format:  the name, telephone number and e-mail address
associated with the AETB and the name of the on-site Qualified
Individual.  Also, for the reference method(s) that were performed,
sources need to report the date that the Qualified Individual has passed
the relevant qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and the
name and email address of the qualification exam provider; and
certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for the relevant
test method issued by a recognized national accreditation body or a
letter of certification for the relevant test methods signed by a member
of the senior management staff of the AETB (recordkeeping only in
electronic or hardcopy format).  For the PGVP-related reporting
requirements, sources need to report certain information for the mid- or
high-level EPA Protocol gas (as applicable) that is used for daily
calibration error tests, the low-, mid-, and high-level gases used for
quarterly linearity checks (the information required (see (1) through
(5) below) is reported for each gas monitor and for both low and high
measurement ranges), and the EPA protocol gases used during RATA
performance tests.  Note that for O2, instead of reporting this
information, if purified air is used as the high-level gas for daily
calibrations or linearity checks, sources need to record the following
information for the low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas used for
linearity checks:

(1) Gas level code;

(2) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used;

(3) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA for the EPA Protocol gas production
site that supplied the EPA Protocol gas cylinder;

(4) The expiration date for the EPA Protocol gas cylinder; and

(5) The cylinder number.

Since the procedures and systems allowing for these data to be reported
are already in place and being used, EPA has assumed that the burden
associated with these additional reporting requirements are relatively
small.  As EPA renews the underlying ICRs for Part 75 [i.e., the Acid
Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570)],
EPA will reevaluate the burden associated with these reporting
activities in conjunction with reviewing the estimated burdens for all
other aspects of Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting.

6.2  Estimating Respondent Costs

	The annual respondent costs will consist of:  1) the costs associated
with a small labor burden for sources to review the new requirements
included in the final rule and comply with the modified reporting
requirements; and 2) the marginal increase in fees resulting from the
new AETB and PGVP requirements.  To estimate labor costs, EPA used the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-specific
Occupational Wage Estimates (May 2008) for the Engine and Turbines
Industry under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 351 and
increased by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead.  A
reference between the applicable SIC and NAICS codes used to update
hourly rates for this ICR is available on the BLS website at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_336000.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_336000.htm .  The mean hourly
rate of $80.71 used for this ICR is based on an even split between the
following two labor categories:  Mechanical Engineers (SOC Code 17-2141)
of $33.75 ($54.00 when increased by a factor of 1.6) and Lawyers (SOC
Code 23-1011) of $67.14 ($107.42 when increased by a factor of 1.6).

6.3  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

	EPA estimates that there will be an incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, and associated with reviewing the reported
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA will:

1.  Review PGVP applications, post the PGVP participants on Agency web
sites, and make adjustments as needed;

2.  Review and post cylinder analysis results; and

3.  Develop and implement annual work assignments for obtaining
cylinders for auditing purposes.

4.  One time update to the Agency reporting software.

EPA estimates that one staff person will need to spend a total of 100
hours per year to complete these tasks.  In addition, there will be a
one-time burden of 600 hours associated with software programming that
will be necessary to ensure that each Part 75 stack test has basic
information for the corresponding AETB and Qualified Individual.  EPA
estimates a burden of 40 hours per year to review and resolve any issues
or problems associated with ensuring that the AETB and Qualified
Individual information is both accurate and current.

Government cost is based on GS-13 salary for professional engineers
($43.99/hr), adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for government
benefits, resulting in a final rate of $70.38/hr.  The hourly rate was
obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Salary Table
2009-GS" (http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp).  Agency time
is estimated for managing the PGVP (which encompass all four activities
listed above) in Table 1 below.  Note that there are no capital or
operation and maintenance costs associated with the Agency burden.

Table 1

Agency Burden and Cost

Information Collection Activity	Number of Responses 	Labor Cost Per
Response ($70.38/hr)	Hours Per Response	Total Hours Per Year	Total Cost
Per Year

Manage PGVP 	50	140.76	2	100	$7,038

Software Programming for AETB	1	492.66	200	200	$14,076

Quality Assurance for AETB Information	5	563.04	8	40	$2,815

TOTAL	340	$23,929

6.4  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

EPA used a combination of the existing Acid Rain Program (ICR No.
1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258) and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570) to estimate the total number
of respondents, labor costs, and O&M costs to determine impacts of the
rule.  Based on these previously established numbers EPA estimates that
there are total of 1,502 facilities that will be respondents affected by
the requirements of the rule.  This includes facilities affected by both
ARP and CAIR.  Each of these respondents will be subject to a total
one-time burden of three hours (i.e., one hour per year during the time
period covered by this ICR) to review the rule requirements as well as
an annual burden of one-half hour to ensure compliance with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (as described in Section 6.1
above) at mean hourly labor cost of $80.71, which results in a total
annual cost of $181,881 (See Table 2 below).

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection Activity	Mean Hourly Rate	Hours per Activity/

Year	Number of Respondents

(Facilities)	Respondent Hours/Year	Total Labor Cost per Year

ARP Respondents One Time Rule Review	$80.71/Hr	1	1,249	1,249	$100,807

ARP Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements
$80.71/Hr	0.5	1,249	625	$50,444

CAIR Respondents One Time Rule Review

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$80.71/Hr	1	138	138	$11,138

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$80.71/Hr	1	104	104	$8,394

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$80.71/Hr	1	10
10	$807

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$80.71/Hr	1	1
1	$81

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$80.71/Hr	0.5	138	69	$5,569

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$80.71/Hr	0.5	104	52	$4,197

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$80.71/Hr	0.5	10
5	$404

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$80.71/Hr	0.5
1	0.5	$40

Total	1,502

2,254

	$181,881

In addition to the respondent burden associated with rule review and
compliance with the modified reporting requirements, EPA estimated the
burden associated with increased annual quality-assurance and
maintenance for each unit.  Based on information provided by stack
testing firms, a conservative one percent increase was applied to the
previously established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent
facility. This is based on the average stack testing industry costs of
preparing a QA/QC manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification
($1,200),  and annual operating costs of maintaining the quality control
system ($5,000 – $50,000 depending on size).  The increased stack
testing overhead costs translate into an increased performance test cost
of $68 to $549 per RATA test depending on the size of the company. The
increase cost per test drops even further if applied to all types of
tests performed by typical stack testing companies.

	The PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased cost of two
dollars or less per cylinder.  This estimate was derived from
correspondence with both large and small specialty gas companies, who
based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and
the following cost estimates. The estimate assumes that NIST analyzes 4
cylinders from each production site, and the total annual cost due to
the PGVP would be approximately $7,200 per production site.  The $7200
estimate includes cylinder analysis and report production by NIST
($1,667/cylinder), average one-way shipping costs back to the production
site ($91/cylinder), and average rental ($7/cylinder/month).  The total
cost of NIST analysis, report production, six months cylinder rental,
and shipping back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per
cylinder.

EPA assumes that both the AETB and PGVP costs will be passed on to
respondents.  To calculate increased O&M costs per respondent, EPA
assumed an average six cylinders per year per unit at an increased cost
of two dollars per cylinder which results in an overall increase of
$54,156 per year.  As such, the QA testing and maintenance costs for
units affected by ARP and CAIR along with the increased cylinder costs
that are passed along to respondents by PGVP vendors, results in an
estimated total annual cost of $1,278,608 for Part 75 QA activities (see
Table 3).  Note that only the marginal increase in fees that can be
attributed to the requirements for AETBs and PGVP vendors in the final
rule were included in this estimate.

Table 3

Increased Annual QA and Maintenance Costs

Information Collection Activity	Previously Established Cont./O&M Cost
Increased Cont./O&M Cost per Respondent	Number of Respondents

●	Non ARP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States

--	Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units)	$31,200	$312	102	$31,824

--	Gas-Oil:  NOx CEMS and App D (units)	$17,400	$174	493	$85,782

--	Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  App D, App E, or LME methods (units)	$1,800
$18	150	$2,700

One Time DAHS Upgrade3

$500	119	$59,500

●	Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States

--	Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units)	$20,800	$208	4	$832

--	Gas-Oil:  NOx CEMS and App D (units)	$17, 400	$174	28	$4,872

One Time DAHS Upgrade3

$500	7	$3,500

--	Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  App D, App E, or LME methods (units)	$1,800
$18	0	$0

PGVP Increased Costs

($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year)

$12	4,513	$54,156

Total	$1,278,608

6.5  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The burden estimated in the preceding ICR (2203.03) included the
one-time burden associated with reviewing the January 2008 Part 75 rule
revisions, as well as the burden associated with DAHS upgrades and
debugging.  The one-time burden for reviewing the January 2008 Part 75
revisions in the rule no longer applies.  As noted above, this
collection request reflects the additional one-time burden for Part 75
sources to review the AETB-related and PGVP-related requirements in the
rule, the one time burden associated with the DAHS upgrade specifically
required to support the new reporting requirements, the annual burden
associated with complying with the modified reporting requirements, and
the additional O&M costs that Part 75 sources will incur as a result of
increased AETB and PGVP costs for Part 75 testing due to compliance with
the revised requirements.  EPA assumes that these costs may be passed
along to Part 75 sources in the form of higher testing fees.  This ICR
also reflects the Agency burden associated with maintenance and quality
assurance of the PGVP and AETB programs.

6.6  Burden Statement

	The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, with
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,460,489.  This
estimate includes the burden associated with the increase in fees from
AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the new
requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources
to review the new requirements and comply with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  When the respondent burden is
combined with the Agency burden, the overall burden and cost per year is
estimated to be 2,594 hours and $1,484,418 respectively.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  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.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:  Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837 and OMB Control Number 2060-0626in any
correspondence.

Appendix A

Summary of Revisions in Final Rule

	The Final Rule for Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing includes
the following:

●	Amended §72.2 by adding two new definitions, and updating others.

●	Amended §72.13  and §75.6 by incorporating by reference a newer
August 25, 1999 version of the EPA Traceability Protocol, and updating
certain references.

●	Revised §75.21(g) to clarify certain provisions and to require any
EPA Protocol gas production site that participates in the PGVP to notify
the Agency of its intent to participate.  Program participants would
need to notify EPA of their intent to participate on an annual basis.
EPA would issue a vendor ID number to each participant, which would then
be a required data element in each electronic quarterly report.  EPA
will maintain a list of participants and other program information on a
website.

●	Revised the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59
and 75.64 to enable EPA to verify that Part 75 affected sources are
using EPA Protocol gases from participating sites and to inform gas
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits.   The new electronic quarterly
PGVP data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 180 days
from publication of the rule in the Federal Register either prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report.

●	Amended §6.5.10 of Appendix A to Part 75 to require that the EPA
Protocol gases used when performing Methods 3A, 6C, or 7E must be from
EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP.

●	Added simple recordkeeping requirements under §75.59, and reporting
requirements under §75.63 and §75.64 to allow the Agency to verify
that a Qualified Individual and an Air Emission Testing Body meet the
applicable requirements (see Appendix B).  Recordkeeping and reporting
elements include the name, telephone number
a摮攠慭汩愠摤敲獳漠桴楁⁲浅獩楳湯吠獥楴杮䈠
摯⁹湡桴湯猭瑩畑污晩敩湉楤楶畤污ഠ

●	Amendment to Section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to clarify assumptions with
respect to ensuring the validity of test data and to post the names of
non-complying AETBs on Agency web sites.  The new electronic quarterly
AETB data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 365 days
from publication of the rule in the Federal Register, either prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report.

●	Removed specific references to mercury monitoring systems throughout
Part 75.

●	Clarified self certification and third party accreditation
provisions to ensure AETBs comply with ASTM D 7036-04.

●	Amended §75.4(d) to clarify the applicability provisions for units
in long-term cold storage after having completed initial certification
and amended §75.4(e) to ensure that all new ARP units are provided the
same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOx emission
c湯牴汯⁳牡湩瑳污敬⹤†ഠ

●	Amended §75.6 to add Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition
to the American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4 -- Proving Systems.

●	Amended §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, by adding various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the data acquisition and handling systems of Part
75 affected units, and are needed to make EPA's new reporting software
data requirements consistent with the regulatory requirements.

●	Revised §75.22(a)(5)(iv) to only allow “dynamic spiking” as an
additional Method 7E quality assurance check; and paragraph (v) to
disallow multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before conducting the
post-run bias or system calibration error check.

●	Removed from §75.47(b)(3) the requirement for an owner or operator
to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved alternative
monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis and  removed the requirement for
EPA to publish a FR notice for a 30-day public comment period prior to
granting a class-approved AMS.

hX+

]

}

w

~

¤

萑ː葠ː摧墼ó

hX+

  hX+

hX+

hM

摧㢻L

hM

hM

h>

&

&

␃؁Ĥ☊ଌF愀Ĥ摧夷

kd¯

kd7

kd½

$

h

h

&

&

&

h

hD(

☊ଌF㄀Ĥ摧䕽ã

h>

h>

hY

h

h

 to make it optional for electronic submittals.

Revised Part 75, Appendix A, Section 4 to update reporting formats.

●	Amended Part 75, Appendix A, Section 5.1.4(b) and Section 5.1.5 to
clarify the meaning of the plus or minus 2.0 percent performance
specification for EPA Protocol gases and research gas mixtures, and to
update the incorporation by reference provision.

Appendix B

Summary of Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing
Bodies

(ASTM D7036-04)

	ASTM D7036-04 specifies general requirements for competence to perform
air emissions tests of stationary sources.  These standards were
developed by representatives from large and small stack testing
companies, state and Federal governments, and private industry.  Its
scope is nationwide and based largely on ISO 17025.  Note that any AETB
conducting RATAs of CEMS, Appendix E testing, or deriving default
emission rates for LME units under part 75 must conform to ASTM
D7036-04.  Following is a general overview of some key
requirements.†ഠ伍杲湡穩瑡潩Ɱ䴠湡条浥湥ⱴ愠摮䐠捯
浵湥慴楴湯ഺ

●	Maintain a system that allows for monitoring the delivery and
improvement of services (as measured by performance data);

●	Maintain a legally identifiable and clearly defined organizational
structure, including parent organizations, staff responsibilities, and
provisions of support services;

●	Employ a technical manager/director, quality manager, and qualified
individual on-site for each test project (who is qualified for each test
method performed);

●	Maintain ability to provide documentation showing compliance with
relevant Federal, state and local requirements for conducting testing
procedures as well as health and safety and other relevant requirements;

●	Maintain procedures to control all documents required for the
established quality system;

●	Ensure that documents are uniquely identified and reviewed/approved
by same group that performed the original review; and

●	Maintain a document control system that allows for tracking
revisions or amendments.

Quality System, Audit, and Review:

●	Develop and maintain a quality assurance policy and a quality system
to ensure consistent achievement of data quality objectives;

●	Document the quality system in a manual that covers all elements
outlined in Appendix X1 of ASTM D7036-04; and

●	Conduct internal audits in accordance with Section 7.4.2 of ASTM
D7036-04.

Personnel:

●	Ensure competence of testing staff and maintain requirements for
staff training; and

●	Provide "Qualified Individuals" to oversee and supervise test
projects and ensure that these individuals take an exam every five years
and meet the experience requirements in Section 8.3.4 of ASTM D7036-04.

Environment, Equipment, and Test Methods:

摧㢻L

he

he

he

萏ː葞ː摧亇ሀ not invalidate test results;

●	Ensure adequate access by qualified individuals to fully operational
testing equipment and software;

●	Establish calibration programs for the equipment (including key
quantities or values) and maintain records for all equipment used; and

●	Use appropriate methods and procedures for all testing performed,
and document any deviations from the applicable regulations in the test
protocol or report that is established for each test project.

Recordkeeping and Reporting:

●	Maintain procedures for handling and storage of quality and
technical records;

●	Retain records of original observations, derived data, information
for audit trail, calibration records, and other information;

●	Accurately report the results of each test, calibration or series of
tests; and

●	Include the information outlined in Section 15.3 of ASTM D7036-04 in
each test report or calibration certificate.

Other Information:

●	Follow guidelines in Section 16 of ASTM D7036-04 if subcontractors
are used;

●	Maintain policies and procedures for the purchase and use of outside
support and supplies; and

●	Maintain policies and procedures in the event that nonconforming
work is completed, including an approach for corrective action.

r administering the NOx budget trading program (see, 40 C.F.R. §
51.121(r)(1), text and respondent counts were taken directly from the
previous CAIR ICR and EPA has used the ARP and CAIR ICR respondent
counts for the purposes of this ICR for consistency.  This approach is
appropriate as the same units are covered and this ICR updates existing
ICRs.

 As discussed in text, no increased labor burdens; marginal O&M cost
increases only.

 To calculate the number of units required to perform a DAHS upgrade, it
was assumed that 80% of applicable CEMS units would be covered by an
existing service contract and not subject to the annualized $1500 fee.

Information Collection Request

February 3, 2011

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

February 3, 2011

Appendix A

November 11, 2009

Page A-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

Appendix B

November 11, 2009

Page B-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 39892]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17340]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Registration System Subcommittee Meeting

TIME AND DATE: August 20, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Mountain
daylight time.

PLACE: Fairfield Inn & Suites, 1293 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, ID
83402. This meeting will also be accessible via conference call. Any
interested person may call 1-866-210-1669, passcode 5253902#, to listen
and participate in the meeting.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Registration System Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will continue
its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting
will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--Subcommittee Chair

    Chair will call the meeting to order.

II. Verification of Meeting Notice--Chief Legal Officer

    Chief Legal Officer will verify the publication of meeting notice
in the Federal Register.

III. Approval of Minutes From June 3, 2019 Meeting--Subcommittee Chair

    Minutes from the June 3, 2019 Registration System Subcommittee
meeting will be reviewed and the Subcommittee will consider approval.

IV. Independent State System Transitions--Subcommittee Chair

    Chair will report on status of the Missouri Department of
Transportation's transition to the UCR National Registration System.
The Chair will also report on the status of the ongoing discussions
regarding the possibility of the Kansas Corporation Commission
transitioning to the UCR National Registration System.

V. Independent State System Interconnection--Subcommittee Chair

    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action: Subcommittee will
consider and possibly recommend to the Board criteria for
interconnecting the remaining independent UCR registration systems
(Illinois, Maine, and Kansas) to the National Registration System.

VI. Amendment to UCR Refund Procedure--Subcommittee Chair

    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action: Subcommittee will
consider and possibly approve a recommendation to the Board amending
the UCR refund procedure to require confirmation from permit agents
that they are authorized to register their clients for UCR using the
National Registration System.

VII. List of Non-Registered Carriers

    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action: Subcommittee will
consider the development of a policy concerning the periodic public
release of those commercial entities eligible for UCR but not
registered. Subcommittee will also consider whether to recommend to the
Board the adoption of such a policy in an effort to increase UCR
compliance.

VIII. Merchant Service Provider--Subcommittee Chair

    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action: Subcommittee will
consider and possibly approve a recommendation to the Board authorizing
and directing the Administrator to contract with a new merchant service
provider for improved terms.

IX. Permit Agent Module--Subcommittee Chair

    The Chair will lead a discussion on the outstanding issues which
must be resolved in order to complete development of a new module
specifically designed for use by third-party permit agents to register
clients subject to UCR.

X. National Registration System--Seikosoft

 Registrations YTD
    Subcommittee will receive an update on total carrier registrations
year to date.
 Administrator Tools
    Subcommittee will receive an update on the utilization to date of
new tools for administrators within the National Registration System,
including new functionality for conducting annual carrier audits and
soliciting carriers by email.
 Administrator Dashboard
    Subcommittee will receive a report on the development of a
dashboard for use by state administrators within the National
Registration System.

XI. Feedback on Reports Produced by National Registration System--
Subcommittee Chair

    Chair will open the floor and solicit feedback on potential
modifications to the reports currently provided by the National
Registration System.

XII. Education & Training Topics--Subcommittee Chair

    Chair will open the floor for discussion of potential topics,
specific to the National Registration System, to be included in the
curriculum for the forthcoming UCR Education & Training Program.

XIII. Other Items--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items the
Subcommittee members would like to discuss.

XIV. Adjourn--Subcommittee Chair

    Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Mountain
daylight time, August 9, 2019 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Acting Chair,
Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2019-17340 Filed 8-8-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P