a Thursday, May 11, 2000 Part I1 Environmental ProtectionAgency \

40 CFR Part 300 NationalPriorities List forUncontrolled HazardousWasteSites; Final Rule & ProposedRule / n 30482, Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 92 /Thursday, May 11, 2000 /Rules and Regulations ..

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 rFRL 6603 31 NationalPrioritiesListforUncontrolle Hazardous Waste Sites AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1 h O (" CERCLA" or "the Act"), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (" NCP") include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National` Priorities List (" NPL") constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA" or "the Agency") in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA financed remedial action( s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds 7 new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NPL shall be June 12,2000. ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as well as further details on what these dockets contain, see Section 11, "Availability of Information to the Public" in the SUPPLEMENTARY `INFORMATION portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603 8835, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (mail code 5204G); U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424 9346 or (703) 412 9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. ~~

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? E. What Is the NCP? C. What Is the National Priorities List D. How Are Sites Listed on the NF'L? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? (NPL)? F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From I. What Is the Construction Completion List the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?

(CCL)? II. Availability of Information to the PubIic !d A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant  to This Final Rule? E. What Documehts Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Dockets? C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets? D. How Do I Access the Documents? E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites? 111. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL ` B. Status of NPL C. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received? IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What Is Executive Order 12866? E. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? V. Unfunded Mandates A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? E. Does UMRA Auulv to This Final Rule? VI. Effects on Smalf6uknesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Final Rule?

the Rule Congress and the General Accounting Office? E. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change? C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule to Change? VIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Final Rule? VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to E$, Executive Order 12898 A. What Is Executive Order 12898? E. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Final Rule? X. Executive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045? E. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule? XI. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule? XII. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are the Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Final Rule? XIII. Executive Order 13084 What Is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule?

I. Background A. What .Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 9601 9675 (" CERCLA" or "the Act"), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17,1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (" SARA"), Public Law 99 499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. B. What Is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (" NCP"), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16,1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and ' , Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, ' August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. EPA haq revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8,1990 (55 FR 8666).

105( a)( 8)( A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes "criteria fbr determining priorities among releases or threatened, releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking removal action." (" Removal" actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases 42 U. S. C. 9601( 23).) C. What Is the National Priorities List [NPL)? As required under section The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105( a)( 8)( B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105( a)( 8)( B) defines the NPL as a list of "releases" and the highest priority "facilities" and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 92 /Thursday, May 11, 2000 /Rules and Regulations 30483 For purposes of listing, the, NPL dissociation of individuals from the has come to be located, or from which i n c l u d e s t w o s e c t i o n s , o n e of sites that release. that contamination came. are generally evaluated and cleaned up EPA determines that the release In other words, while geographic by EPA (the "General Superfund poses a significant threat to public terms are often used to designate the site S e c t i o n "), a n d o n e of s i t e s t h a t a r e . health. (e. g., the "Jones Co. p l a n t s i t e ") i n terms owned or operated by other Federal EPA anticipates that it will be more of the property owned by a particular agencies (the "Federal Facilities cost effective to use its remedial party, the site properly understood is Section"). With respect to sites in the authority than to use its removal not limited to that property (e. g., it may Federal Facilities Section, these sites are authority to respond to the release. extend beyond the property due to generally being addressed by other EPA Promulgated an original NPLof contaminant migration), and conversely Federal agencies. Under Executive 406 Sites on September 8,1983 (48 FR may not occupy the full extent of the Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 40658). The NpL has been property (e. g., where there are 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Since then, most On 4~ uncontaminated parts of the identified Federal agency is responsible for 2000 (65` FR 5435). p r o p e r t y , t h e y m a y n o t be, strictly carrying out most response actions at E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? speaking, part of the "site"). The "site" facilities under its by custody, or control, although EPA is A site may undergo action the boundaries of any specific property responsible for preparihg an ,HRS score financed by the Trust Fund established that may give the site its name, and the and determining whether the facility is under as the CERCLA (commonly only after referred it is to name itself should not be read to imply the lead agency at Federal Facilities NCP at 4o CFR 3oo. 425cb)( l). entire area within the property Section sites, and its role at such sites (" Remedial actions,, are those boundary of the installation or plant. is accordingly less extensive of t h e s i t e other sites. taken instead of or in addition to D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? removal actions * * * . " 42 U. S. C. listing. Also, the site name is merely 9601( 24).) However, under 40 CFR used to help identify the geographic There are t h r e e m e c h a n i s m s for location of t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n . For placing sites on the NPL for possible "does not imply that monies will be 300.425( b)( 2) placing a site on the NPL example, the name Go. plant remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425( c) expended,,, EPA may pursue site," does not imply that the Jones of the NCP): (1) A site may b e i n c l u d e d c o m p a n y is responsible for the on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high ~~~~~~a ~c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o contamination located on the plant site. on the Hazard Ranking System (` 'HRS" 1, under CERCLA and other laws, EPA regulations provide that the which EPA promulgated as appendix A "nature and extent of the problem of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? presented by the release" will be serves as a screening device to evaluate The NPL does not describe releases in determined by a remedial investigation/ the relative potential of uncontrolled precise geographical terms; it would be feasibility study (RI/ FS) as more hazardous substances to pose a threat to neither feasible nor consistent with the information is developed on site human health or the environment. On limited purpose ofthe NPL (to identify contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA releases that are for further the RI/ FS process, the release may be promulgated revisions to the HRS p. art1y evaluation), for it to do so. found to be lyger or smaller than was in response to CERCLA Section 105(~), Although a CERCLA `` facility'' is originally thought, as more is learned added by SARA. The revised HRS broadly defined to include any area about the source( s) and the migration of evaluates four pathways: ground water, where a hazardous substance release has the contamination. However, this surface water, soil exposure, and air. AS "come to be located" (CERCLA section inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the a matter of Agency policy, those sites 101( 9)), the listing process itself is not threat posed; the boundaries of the placed On the NPL* generally is not placed on the NPL, as provided in the that this site is coextensive with the , "consistent with permanent remedy, are typically not known at the time of that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS intended to define or reflect the release need not be exactly defined.

1 are eligible for the NPL; (2) Each State boundaries of such facilities or releases. Moreover, it generally is impossible to may designate a single site as its top ' Of cowse, HRS data (if the HRS is used discover` the full extent of where the priority to be listed on the NPL, to list a site) upon which the NPL contamination "has come to be located" regardless of the HRS score. This placement was based will, to some before all necessary studies and mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 extent, describe the release( s) at issue. remedial work are completed at a site. CFR 300.425(~)( 2) requires that, to the That is, the NPL site would include all Indeed, the known boundaries of the extent practicable, the NPL include releases evaluated as part of that HRS contamination can be expected to w i J h i n t h e 1 0 0 h i g h e s t p r i o r i t i e s , o n e a n a l sis. change over time. T h u s , i n most cases, facility designated by each State wxen a site is listed, the approach it may be impossible to describe the representing the greatest danger to generally used to describe the relevant boundaries of a release with absolute public health, welfare, or the release( s) is to delineate a geographical certainty. environment among known facilities in area (usually the area within an Further, as noted above, NPL listing '\

the State (see 42 U3. c. 96o5( aI( 8)( B)); installation or plant boundaries) and does not assign liability to any party or (3) The third mechanism for listing, identify the site by reference to that included in the NCP at 40 CFR to the owner of any specific property. j 300.425(~)( 3), allows certain sites to be coextensive with that area, and the liable for releases on discrete parcels of listed regardless of their HRS score, if boundaries of the installation or plant property, supporting information can be all of the following conditions are met: are not the "boundaries" of the site, submitted to the Agency at any time and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the contaminated areas within the area used potentially responsible party. U. S. Public Health Service has issued a to identify the site, as well as any other For these reasons, the, NPL need not health advisory that recommends location to which that contamination be amended as further research reveals area. As a legal matter, the site is not Thus, if a party does not believe it is 0 The Agency for Toxic Substances Rather, the site consists of all after a party receives notice it is a more information about the location of the oontamination or release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on ~

proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As of April 27,2000, the Agency has deleted 212, sites from the NPL. H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted (ii) All appropriate Superfund

In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of April 27, 2000, EPA has deleted portions of 18 sites.

I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

,construction completion list (" CCL, ') to simplify its system of categorizing sites successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR L2142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e. g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Of the 212 sites that have been deleted from the NPL, 203 sites were deleted because they have been cleaned up (the. other 9 sites were deleted based on deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up). As of April 27, 2000, there are a total of 685 sites mythe CCL. This total includes the 212 EPA also h& s developed an NPL ~

~

and to better communicate the I deleted sites, For the most up to date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund. 11. Availability of Information to the Public A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule? Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters and in the Regional offices. B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters docket for this rule contains, for each site, the HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. The Headquarters docket also contains comments received, and the Aaencv's resDonses to those comments. Ben Conetta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI], U. S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007 1866; 21216374435 Dawn Shellenberger (GCI), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV). US. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 2151 814 5364 i Joellen O'Neill, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U. S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta,

Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Wqste, Management Division 7 J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/

Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U. S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF RA, Dallas,

Carole Long, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U. S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 9131551 7224 David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, N D , SD, UT, WY), U. S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR SA, Denver, CO 80202 2466; 303/ 312 6757 GA 30303; 4041562 8127 886 7570 TX 75202 2733; 214/ 665 7436 in the "SuGport eocument for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule May 2000."

C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional dockets contain all the information in the Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference Regional dockets.

D. How Do I Access the Documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this document. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours.

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 7031603 8917. The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows: Barbara Callahan, Region 1 (CT, ME,  documents are available only in the Following is the contact information MA, NH, RI, VT), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114 2023; 6171918 1356 N V ; AS, Go], US. EPA, 75. Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 4151 744 2343 Robert Phillips, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U. S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL 115, Seattle,

E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites? ,

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at http:// www. epa. govlsuperfund1 (look under site information category) or by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above). 111. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. Table 1 presents the 7 sites in the Gederal Superfund Section. Sites in the table are arranged alphabetically by State. WA 98101; 2061553 6699 This final rule adds 7 sites to the NPL;

TABLE 1 . NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Citykounty Site name AR ..... Reader. Ouachita Nevada Wood Treater. CA ..... LeviathanMine ... Callaway & Son FL ...._. AlpineCounty. LakeAlfred. Drum Service. FL ...... Landia Chemical Lakeland. Company.

i I** """,,.*," a~  . n_,** A," L_ " r_^

Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 92 /Thursday, May 11, 2000 /Rules and Regulations 30485 TABLE 1 . NATIONAL PRI. ORITIES LIST FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION Continued State ,

NY .....

UT .....

WA .... Site name OldRoosevelt FieldContami nated Ground Water Area. Intermountain Waste Oil Re finery. MidniteMine ....... Citykounty Garden City.

Bountiful.

Wellpinit.

Numberof Sites AddedtotheGeneral Superfund Section: 7.

B. Status of NPL With the 7 new sites added to the NPL in today's final rule; the NPL now contains 1,227 final sites; 1,068 in the General Superfund Section and 159 in the Federal Facilities Section. With a separate rule (published'elsewhere in today's Federal Register] proposing to add 14 new sites to the NPL, there are noTN 62 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 55 in the General Superfund Section and 7 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now tota1?, 289. (These numbers reflect the status of sites as of April 27, 2000. Site deletions occurring after this date may affect these numbers at time of publication in the Federal Register.)

C. What, Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?

EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule. The Midnite Mine site was proposed on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7564). The Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery site and the Leviathan Mine site were proposed on October 22,1999 (64 FR 56992). The following sites were proposed on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5435): Ouachita Nevada Wood Treater, Callaway & Son Drum Service, Landia Chemical Company, and Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Ground Water Area. For Ouachita Nevada Wood Treater, Callaway & Son Drum Service, Landia Chemical Company, and, Old Roo, sevelt Field Contaminated Ground Water Area sites, EPA received no comments affecting the HRS scoring of these sites and therefore, EPA is placing them on the final NPL at this time.

comments received on the other sites. EPA's responses to site specific public comments are addressed in the "Support Document for the Revised 2000". EPA responded to all relevant n National Priorities List Final Rule May IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What Is Executive Order 12866?

51735 (October 4,1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an actioqtaken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. B. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive OrdeG 12866 Review? No, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review. V. Unfunded Mandates A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? Title I1 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal, mandates" that may result in expenditures by State, local, , and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives* of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administratpr publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule? No, EPA has determined that this rule does\ not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition,, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? \

I Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. S. C. 601 et seq, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment 30486 Federal' Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 /Thursday, May 11, 2000 /Rules and Regulations . ,

a regulatory flexibility analysis that VII. Possible Changes to the Effective describes the effect of the rule on small Date of the Rule entities (Le., small businesses, small A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will The Congressional Review Act, not have a significant economic impact U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the on a substantial number of small Business Regulatory Enforcement entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to that before a rule may take effect, the Federal agencies to provide a statement agency promulgating the must , of the factual basis for certifying that a submit a rule report, which includes a rule will not have a significant copy of the rule, to each House of the economic impact on a substantial Congress and to the Comptroller General number of small entities. of the United States. EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and other B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act required information to the U. S. Senate, Apply t o T h i s Final Rule? the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United an NPL revision is not a typical No. While this rule revises the NPL, States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register, A "major rule" regulatory change since it does not cannot take effect until 60 days after it automatically impose costs. As stated is published in the Federal Register. above, adding sites to the NPL does not This rule is not a g ~~~j ~~ rule" as in itself require any action by any party, defined by 5 u .s .~, 804( 2),

party for the cost of cleanup at the site. B. Could the Effective Date O f This Fin Further, no identifiable groups are Rule Change? affected as a whole. As a consequence, Provisions of the Congressional impacts on any group are hard to Review Act (CkA) or section 305 of predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL CERCLA may alter the effective date of could increase the likelihood of adverse this regulation. impacts on responsible parties (in the Under the CRA, 5 U. S. C. 801( a), form of cleanup costs), but at this time before a rule can take effect the federal EPA cannot identify the potentially agency promulgating the rule must affected businesses or estimate the submit a report to each House of the number of small businesses that might Congress and to the Comptroller also be affected. General. This report must contain a The Agency does expect that placing Of the a concise general the sites in this rule on the NPL could statement relating to the rule (including significantly affect certain. industries, or whethec it is a major rule), a COPY of the firms within industries, that have cost benefit analysis of the rule (if any), caused a proportionately high the agency's actions relevant to percentage of waste site problems. provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility However, EPA does not expect the Act (affecting small businesses] and the listing of these sites to have a significant Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Of lgg5 economic impact on a substantial (describing unfunded federal number of small businesses. requirements imposed on state and local organizations, and governmental Congress a n d t h e General Accounting Office?

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides I nor does it determine the liability of any In any case, economic impacts and any other relevant information or governments and the private sector),

Occur only through enforcement and \ requirements and any relevant cost recovery actions, which EPA takes Executive Orders. at it's discretion on a site by site basis. EPA has submitted a report under the EPA considers manykactors when CRA for thi6 rule. The rule will take determining enforcement actions, effect, as provided by law, within 30 including not only a firm's contribution days of publication of this document, to the problem, but also its ability to , since it is not a major rule. Section pay* The impacts (from cost recovery) 804( 2) defines a major rule as any rule <' On governmen and nonprofit that the Administrator of the Office of organizations would `i, ' e determined on a Information and Regulatory ~f f ~i ~~ similar case by case basis. (OIRA) of the Office of Management and For the foregoing reasons, I hereby Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or certify that this rule, if promulgated, is likely to result in: an annual effect on will not have a significant economic the economy of$~ OO, OOO, OOO or more; a impact on a substantial number of small major increase in costs or prices for entities. Therefore, this regulation does consumers, individual industries, not require a regulatory flexibility Federal, State, or local government analysis. agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of Unit, ed States based enterprises to compete with foreign based enterprises in domest, ic and export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any action by any party or determine its liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site by site decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Section 801( a)( 3) provides for a delay in the effective date of major y l e s after this report is submitted. C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule to Change? Under 5 U. S. C. 801( b)( l) a rule shall spot take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs] a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the Universiv of Washington v. EPA, 86 F. 3d 1214,1222 , (D. C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the legislative, veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

VIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA, to > Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 92 /Thursday, May 11, 2000 /Rules and Regulations 30487 provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Final Rule? No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. IX. Executive Order 12898 A. What Is Executive Order 12898? Under Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations," as well as through EPA's April 1995, "Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report," and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high adadverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and i sustainable communities. preferable to other potentially effective imposes substantial direct compliance and reasonably feasible alternatives costs, and that is not required by statute, considered by the Agency. unless the Federal government provides '. the funds necessary to pay the direct B. `Does Executive Order 13b45 Apply tOcomDliance costs incurred bv state and This Final Rule? This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmeqtal health or safety risks addressed by this section present a disproportionate risk to children.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by,, OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070 0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule? No. EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does "

According to the Paperwork B. Does Executive Order 12898 Amlv torequirements that require approval of not contain aGy information collection " .. This Final Rule? No. While this rule revises the NPL, no action will result` from this rule that will have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on any segment of the population. X. Execdtive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045?

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) co'ncerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or sgfety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is Executive Order 13045: "Protection of the OMB . XII. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are the Executive Orders on "

This Final, Rule? Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications'` is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government." Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that locai govemments, or EPA cbnsults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulati, on. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the nafional government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. XIII. Executive Order 13084 What Is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable ,to This Final Rule? Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required, by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by ,' consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the areamble to the This final rule does not have prior consultition with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their `communities." This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of T" 30488 Federal Rep; ister/ Vol. 65, No. 92 /Thursday, May 11, 2000 /Rules and Regulations ~~ ~~

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to Dated: May 3,2000. Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1321( c)( 2); 42 U. S. C. this rule. Timothy Fields, Jr., 9601 9657; E. 0.12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 300 Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 1991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580,! 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 40CFR part 300 is amended as 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 substances, Hazardous waste, follows: i s a m e n d e d by a d d i n g t h e following Intergovernmental relations, Natural sites in alphabetical order to read as resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, PART 300[ AMENDED] follows: and Emergency Response. Environmental protection, Air Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 1. The authority citation for part 300 Appendix €3 to Part 300 IVational pollution control, Water supply. continues to read as follows: Priorities List TABLE 1 . GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name (a)

* t , * AR ................ OuachitaNevadaWoodTreater .................................................................. Reader.

CA ................ LeviathanMine ............................................................................................ AlpineCounty.

/* FL ................. Callaway & Son Drum Service .................................................................... LakeAlfred.

FL ................. LandiaChemicalCompany ..........................................................................

* * NY ................ Old RooseveltFieldContaminatedGroundWaterArea .............................

UT ................ IntermountainWaste Oil Refinery ................................................................

WA ............... MidniteMine ................................................................................................ \

* Lakeland.

GardenCity.

Bountiful.

* Wellpinit.

(a) A= Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be 5: 28.50). C= Sites on construction completion list. S= State top priority (included among the 100 toppriority sites regardless of score). P= Sites with partial deletion( s).

[FR Doc. 00 11562 Filed 5 10 00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560 50 Pi


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66447-66448]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0138; FRL-11433-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Regional Haze Regulations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Regional Haze Regulations (EPA
ICR Number 2540.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0704) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through September 30, 2023. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on March 31, 2023,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 27, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0138 to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Macie Moore, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, mail code C539-
04, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through September 30, 2023. 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.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on March 31, 2023 during a 60-day comment period (88 FR 19301). This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting
documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of the EPA's regional haze rule, for the time period between September
30, 2023, and September 30, 2026, and renews the previous ICR. The
regional haze rule codified at 40 CFR parts 308 and 309, as authorized
by sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act, requires states to
develop implementation plans to protect visibility in 156 federally
protected Class I areas. Tribes may choose to develop implementation
plans. For this time period, all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands will be developing and submitting periodic
progress reports. Further, 14 states/territories will be developing and
submitting periodic comprehensive implementation plan revisions to
comply with the regulations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, local and tribal air quality
agencies, regional planning organizations and facilities potentially
regulated under the Regional Haze Rule.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory [40 CFR 51.308(b),
(f) and (g)].
    Estimated number of respondents: 52 (total).
    Frequency of response: Approximately every 5 years.
    Total estimated burden: 15,846 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $932,062 (per year), which includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is decrease of 22,409 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease in burden reflects changes in the
activities conducted due to the normal progression of the program,
especially the fact that all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands will be developing and submitting progress
reports by January 31, 2025, while 14 states/territories will be
submitting periodic comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions. In the previous ICR period, we assumed 52 states/territories
would be developing and submitting comprehensive SIP revisions.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-21036 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36810-36812]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14534]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67956; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change for the Permanent Approval of a Pilot
Program to Permit the Exchange to Accept Inbound Options Orders Routed
by Nasdaq Options Services LLC from NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.

June 13, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On April 23, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``PHLX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
requesting permanent approval of the Exchange's pilot program that
permits the Exchange to accept inbound orders routed by NASDAQ Options

Services LLC (``NOS'') from NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 8,
2013.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters regarding the
proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.

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

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69498 (May 2, 2013),
78 FR 26826 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    PHLX Rule 985(b) prohibits the Exchange or any entity with which it
is affiliated from, directly or indirectly, acquiring or maintaining an
ownership interest in, or engaging in a business venture with, an
Exchange member or an affiliate of an Exchange member in the absence of
an effective filing under Section 19(b) of the Act.\4\ NOS is a
registered broker-dealer that is a member of the Exchange, and
currently provides to members of BX optional routing services to other
markets.\5\ NOS is owned by NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''),
which also owns three registered securities exchanges--the Exchange,
BX, and the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'').\6\ Thus, NOS is an
affiliate of these exchanges.\7\ Absent an effective filing, PHLX Rule
985(b) would prohibit NOS from being a member of the Exchange. The
Commission initially approved NOS's affiliation with PHLX in connection
with NASDAQ OMX's acquisition of PHLX,\8\ and NOS currently performs
certain limited activities for the Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). PHLX Rule 985 also prohibits a PHLX member
from being or becoming an affiliate of PHLX, or an affiliate of an
entity affiliated with PHLX, in the absence of an effective filing
under Section 19(b). See PHLX Rule 985(b)(1)(B).
    \5\ NOS operates as a facility of BX that provides outbound
routing from BX to other market centers, subject to certain
conditions. See BX Options Rules, Chapter VI, Sec. 11 (Order
Routing). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67256 (June
26, 2012), 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58324 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 46936 (August 12, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-02; SR-BSE-2008-
23; SR-BSE-2008-25; SR-BSECC-2008-01) (order approving NASDAQ OMX's
acquisition of BX); and 58179 (July 17, 2008), 73 FR 42874 (July 23,
2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-31) (order approving NASDAQ OMX's acquisition of
PHLX) (``PHLX Acquisition Order'').
    \7\ See id. See also Notice, supra 78 FR at 26827.
    \8\ See PHLX Acquisition Order, 73 FR at 42887.
    \9\ See, e.g., Phlx Rule 1080(m) (Away Markets and Order
Routing). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May
28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 15, 2012, PHLX filed a proposed rule change for the Exchange
to accept inbound orders routed from BX on a pilot basis subject to
certain limitations and conditions.\10\ On April 23, 2013, the Exchange
filed the instant proposal to allow the Exchange to accept such orders
routed inbound by NOS from BX on a permanent basis subject to certain
limitations and conditions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67026 (May 18,
2012), 77 FR 31053 (May 24, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-68) (notice of
proposed rule change to allow the Exchange to accept inbound orders
from BX on a one-year pilot basis).
    \11\ See Notice, 78 FR at 26826.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\12\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ which
requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange be so
organized and have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act,
and to comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons
associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act, the rules
and regulation thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. Further, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and
equitable principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities; 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. Section 6(b)(5) also
requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that the Commission has expressed concern regarding the
potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a member firm is
affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing orders, the Exchange
previously implemented limitations and conditions to NOS's affiliation
with the Exchange to permit the Exchange to accept inbound orders that
NOS routes in its capacity as a facility of BX on a pilot basis.\15\
The Exchange has proposed to permit PHLX to accept inbound orders that
NOS routes in its capacity as a facility of BX on a permanent basis,
subject to the same limitations and conditions of this pilot: \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67294 (June 28,
2012), 77 FR 39771 (July 5, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-68).
    \16\ See Notice, 78 FR at 26827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First, the Exchange and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') will maintain a Regulatory Contract, as well as
an agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act (``17d-2
Agreement'').\17\ Pursuant to the Regulatory Contract and the 17d-2
Agreement, FINRA will be allocated regulatory responsibilities to
review NOS's compliance with certain PHLX rules.\18\ Pursuant to the
Regulatory Contract, however, the Exchange retains ultimate
responsibility for enforcing its rules with respect to NOS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \18\ NOS is also subject to independent oversight by FINRA, its
designated examining authority, for compliance with financial
responsibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, FINRA will monitor NOS for compliance with PHLX's
trading rules, and will collect and maintain certain related
information.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Pursuant to the Regulatory Contract, both FINRA and the
Exchange will collect and maintain all alerts, complaints,
investigations and enforcement actions in which NOS (in its capacity
as a facility of BX routing orders to the Exchange) is identified as
a participant that has potentially violated applicable Commission or
Exchange rules. The Exchange and FINRA will retain these records in
an easily accessible manner in order to facilitate any potential
review conducted by the Commission's Office of Compliance
Inspections and Examinations. See Notice, 78 FR at 26827 n.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, FINRA will provide a report to the Exchange's chief
regulatory officer (``CRO''), on a quarterly basis, that: (i)
Quantifies all alerts (of which the Exchange or FINRA is aware) that
identify NOS as a participant that has potentially violated Commission
or Exchange rules, and (ii) lists all investigations that identify NOS
as a participant that has potentially violated Commission or PHLX
rules.
     Fourth, the Exchange has in place PHLX Rule 985, which
requires NASDAQ OMX, as the holding company owning both the Exchange
and NOS, to establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that NOS does not develop or implement
changes to its system, based on non-public information obtained
regarding planned changes to the Exchange's systems as a

result of its affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is
available generally to similarly situated Exchange members, in
connection with the provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange.
    The Exchange stated that it has met all the above-listed
conditions. By meeting such conditions, the Exchange believes that it
has set up mechanisms that protect the independence of the Exchange's
regulatory responsibility with respect to NOS, and has demonstrated
that NOS cannot use any information advantage it may have because of
its affiliation with the Exchange.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, 78 FR at 26827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage.\21\ Although the Commission continues to be concerned about
potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interest when
the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, for the reasons
discussed below, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Act to permit NOS, in its capacity as a facility of BX, to route orders
inbound to the Exchange on a permanent basis instead of a pilot basis,
subject to the limitations and conditions described above.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54170 (July
18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-006) (order
approving NASDAQ's proposal to adopt NASDAQ Rule 2140, restricting
affiliations between NASDAQ and its members); 53382 (February 27,
2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (order
approving the combination of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and
Archipelago Holdings, Inc.); 58673 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707
(October 3, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62 and SR-NYSE-2008-60) (order
approving the combination of NYSE Euronext and the American Stock
Exchange LLC); 59135 (December 22, 2008), 73 FR 79954 (December 30,
2008) (SR-ISE-2009-85) (order approving the purchase by ISE Holdings
of an ownership interest in Direct Edge Holdings LLC); 59281
(January 22, 2009), 74 FR 5014 (January 28, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-120)
(order approving a joint venture between NYSE and BIDS Holdings
L.P.); 58375 (August 18, 2008), 73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008) (File
No. 10-182) (order granting the exchange registration of BATS
Exchange, Inc.); 61698 (March 12, 2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18,
2010) (File Nos. 10-194 and 10-196) (order granting the exchange
registration of EDGX Exchange, Inc. and EDGA Exchange, Inc.); and
62716 (August 13, 2010), 75 FR 51295 (August 19, 2010) (File No. 10-
198) (order granting the exchange registration of BATS-Y Exchange,
Inc.).
    \22\ The Commission notes that these limitations and conditions
are consistent with those previously approved by the Commission for
other exchanges. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
69233 (March 25, 2013), 78 FR 19352 (March 29, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-
2013-028); 69232 (March 25, 2013), 78 FR 19342 (March 29, 2013) (SR-
BX-2013-013); 69229 (March 25, 2013), 78 FR 19337 (March 29, 2013)
(SR-Phlx-2013-15); 67256 (June 26, 2012) 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012)
(SR-BX-2012-030); and 64090 (March 17, 2011), 76 FR 16462 (March 23,
2011) (SR-BX-2011-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has proposed four ongoing conditions applicable to
NOS's routing activities, which are enumerated above. The Commission
believes that these conditions will mitigate its concerns about
potential conflicts of interest and unfair competitive advantage. In
particular, the Commission believes that FINRA's oversight of NOS,\23\
combined with FINRA's monitoring of NOS's compliance with the
Exchange's rules and quarterly reporting to the Exchange, will help to
protect the independence of the Exchange's regulatory responsibilities
with respect to NOS. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's
Rule 985(b) is designed to ensure that NOS cannot use any information
advantage it may have because of its affiliation with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This oversight will be accomplished through the 17d-2
Agreement between FINRA and the Exchange and the Regulatory
Contract. See Notice, 78 FR at 26827 n.10 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2013-42) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14534 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55995-55997]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0369; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANM-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-298 in the Vicinity of
Pasco, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies VOR Federal airway V-298 in the vicinity
of Pasco, WA. The FAA is taking this action due to the Pasco, WA (PSC),
VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)
facility that provides navigation aid (NAVAID) guidance for a portion
of V-298, being relocated. This action will ensure the safety and
efficient management of

aircraft operating within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 13, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://
www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/
federalregister/codeoffederal-regulations/
ibrlocations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The Tri-Cities Airport, located in Pasco, WA, is the fourth largest
air carrier airport in Washington State. In the past five years, the
number of enplanements at the airport has increased by nearly 100,000
per year. To accommodate this unprecedented growth, the Port of Pasco
is expanding the Tri-Cities Airport terminal to nearly double the size
of the existing terminal. However, the terminal expansion project
creates a proximity issue to one of the taxiways on the airfield
(taxiway D) by aircraft that will push back from the gates at the
expanded terminal, as well as encroaches into the PSC VOR 1,000 foot
clear zone.
    To resolve the terminal expansion proximity issue with taxiway D,
approximately two thirds of the taxiway is being relocated to the
northeast, away from the terminal, to establish a straight, parallel
taxiway to runways 12/30 for the entire length of the taxiway. As a
result of the portion of taxiway D effected by the terminal expansion
being relocated, the new taxiway will run through the PSC VOR/DME site.
To overcome the airport terminal expansion encroaching on the PSC VOR
clear zone and, subsequently, the new taxiway D being relocated through
the VOR/DME site, the NAVAID will be moved north 0.44 nautical miles,
away from the airport terminal expansion and the taxiway relocation.
Moving the PSC VOR/DME enables the NAVAID to be retained and continue
providing ground-based navigation aid coverage for the existing VOR
Federal airway segments it supports today.
    Due to the PSC VOR/DME NAVAID being relocated, VOR Federal airway
V-298 requires amendment action. The FAA is modifying this airway by
changing the PSC VOR radial information used to identify the
intersection point in the legal description using corrected radial
information from the PSC VOR/DME in its new location. Since this action
merely involves editorial changes in the legal descriptions of VOR
Federal Airways, and does not involve a change in the dimensions or
operating requirements of that airspace, notice and public procedure
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to modify VOR Federal airway V-298. The PSC VOR/DME relocation,
due to the Tri-Cities Airport terminal expansion and taxiway D
relocation projects, has made this action necessary. The route
modification is outlined below.
    V-298: V-298 extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and Gillette,
WY, VOR. This action modifies the route segment between the Yakima, WA,
VORTAC and the PSC VOR/DME by changing the PSC radial used to describe
the intersection between the two NAVAIDs from the Pasco 274[deg] radial
to the Pasco 273[deg] radial. Additionally, this action removes
reference to a south alternate airway designation previously deleted by
regulatory action published in the Federal Register (48 FR 54829,
December 7, 1983).
    The navigation aid radials cited in this action are stated relative
to True north.
    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal airway listed in this document would be subsequently published
in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe
and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014 and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-298 [Amended]

    From Seattle, WA; INT Seattle 107[deg] and Yakima, WA, 331[deg]
radials; Yakima; INT Yakima 129[deg] and Pasco, WA, 273[deg]
radials; Pasco; Pendleton, OR; 74 miles, 43 miles 115 MSL, 99 MSL
Donnelly, ID; 41 miles 99 MSL, 89 miles 145 MSL, Dubois, ID; 68
miles 130 MSL, Dunoir, WY; 62 miles 135 MSL, Boysen Reservoir, WY; 9
miles, 34 miles 105 MSL, Muddy Mountain,WY; to Gillette, WY.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2014.
Ellen Crum,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-22237 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 76081-76082]
[DOCID:fr15de08-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59069; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-124]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC
Extending for Three Months to March 31, 2009 the Moratorium Related to
the Qualification and Registration of Registered Competitive Market
Makers Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107A and Competitive Traders Pursuant to
NYSE Rule 110

December 8, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 2, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend for three months to March 31, 2009
the moratorium related to the qualification and registration of
Registered Competitive Market Makers (``RCMMs'') pursuant to NYSE Rule
107A and Competitive Traders (``CTs'') pursuant to NYSE Rule 110. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at www.nyse.com, the
NYSE, and 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

 1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend for three months to March 31, 2009
the moratorium related to the qualification and registration of RCMMs
pursuant to NYSE Rule 107A and CTs pursuant to NYSE Rule 110.
    On September 22, 2005, the Exchange filed SR-NYSE-2005-63 \4\ with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposing to
implement a moratorium on the qualification and registration of new
RCMMS and CTs (``Moratorium''). The purpose of the Moratorium was to
allow the Exchange an opportunity to review the viability of RCMMs and
CTs in the NYSE HYBRID MARKET\SM\ (``Hybrid Market'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52648 (October 21,
2005), 70 FR 62155 (October 28, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-63).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05) (establishing
the NYSE HYBRID MARKET\SM\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During each phase of the Hybrid Market, the NYSE implemented new
system functionality that generated additional data to review. As a
result, the Exchange was unable to make an informed decision as to the
viability of RCMMs and CTs in the Hybrid Market. The phasing in
implementation of the Hybrid Market required the Exchange to extend the
Moratorium an additional six times over a twenty-four (24) month
period.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e-mail from Jennifer Kim, Counsel, NYSE to Sara Gillis,
Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated
December 4, 2008; See Securities Exchange Act Release Numbers 54140
(July 13, 2006), 71 FR 41491 (July 21, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-48);
54985 (December 21, 2006), 72 FR 171 (January 3, 2007) (SR-NYSE-
2006-113); 55992 (June 29, 2007), 72 FR 37289 (July 9, 2007) (SR-
NYSE-2007-57); 56556 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56421 (October 3,
2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-86); 57072 (December 31, 2007), 73 FR 1252
(January 7, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2007-125); 57601 (April 2, 2008), 73 FR
19123 (April 8, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2008, the Commission approved the Exchange's new
market model filing (``New Model'').\7\ The New Model filing: (i)
Provided market participants with additional abilities to post hidden
liquidity on Exchange systems; (ii) created a Designated Market Maker
(``DMM''), and phased out the NYSE specialist; and (iii) enhanced the
speed of execution through technological enhancements and a reduction
in message traffic between Exchange systems and its DMMs. In light of
the implementation of the New Model, the Exchange requested an
extension of the Moratorium to evaluate the viability of the RCMMs and
CTs in the proposed New Model two times over a six (6) month period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
    \8\ See e-mail from Jennifer Kim, Counsel, NYSE to Sara Gillis,
Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated
December 4, 2008; See Securities Exchange Act Release Numbers 58033
(June 26, 2008), 73 FR 38265 (July 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-49); 58713
(October 2, 2008), 73 FR 59024 (October 8, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-96).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is currently implementing the second phase (``Phase
2'') of technology required for the operation of the New Model. Upon
completion of the installation of the Phase 2 technology,\9\ the New
Model will operate as a pilot scheduled to end on October 1, 2009.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to have the ability to review data that
will be generated as a

part of the complete operation of the New Model related to RCMM and CT
trading. Once Phase 2 implementation is complete, the NYSE will have
the fuller data set to decide what roles, if any, RCMMs and CTs should
perform at the NYSE. Thereafter, the Exchange will formally submit a
proposal to the Commission outlining the roles, if any, these classes
of traders have in the Exchange's New Model market. The Exchange is
therefore proposing to extend the Moratorium as amended \10\ for an
additional three (3) months to March 31, 2009 in order to finalize its
determination as to the roles of RCMMs and CTs at the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Phase 2 is scheduled to be completed no later than January
2, 2009.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53549 (March 24,
2006), 71 FR 16388 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-11) (making
certain amendments to the Moratorium).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will issue an Information Memo announcing the
extension of the Moratorium.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act \11\ for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \12\ that an exchange have rules that
are 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. The Exchange believes that the
instant filing is consistent with these principles in that the review
of data associated with RCMM and CT trading in light of the significant
developments in its technology and New Model will allow the Exchange to
make an informed decision as to the viability of RCMMs and CTs in this
evolving marketplace and may potentially remove impediments to and
better improve the mechanism of a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\13\ The Exchange asserts that the
proposed rule change (i) will not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest, (ii) will not impose any
significant burden on competition, and (iii) by its terms, will not
become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the
self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied the requirement that it give the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change,
or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-124 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-124. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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-
NYSE-2008-124 and should be submitted on or before January 5, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29554 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: Linda Hollis,<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS> TEMPLATE:

Plant Health Care Inc.

[1F8901]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (1F8901) from Plant Health Care Inc., 2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 350, Raleigh, NC 27608 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 	     	2. biochemical pesticide PDHP 25279

	 Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA, as amended, Plant Health Care Inc. has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by Plant Health Care Inc. and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

I. Plant Health Care Inc. Petition Summary        	[1F8901]

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

	PDHP 25279 when used as an active ingredient in biochemical pesticide formulations to be applied to growing crops or seeds.

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. PDHP 25279 is a Peptide Derived from Harpin Protein (PDHP) (specifically, harpin or harpinαβ) that is produced by fermentation and identified by the following criteria: (1) consists of a peptide less than 5 kD in size, less than 40 amino acids in length, that is acidic (pI<7.0) and contains no cysteine residues; (2) the source(s) of genetic material encoding the protein are bacterial plant pathogens not known to be mammalian pathogens or any structurally, functionally similar peptide produced synthetically; (3) elicits the Natural Defense Mechanism (NDM), which is characterized as rapid, localized cell death in plant tissue after infiltration of the peptide into the intercellular spaces of plant leaves or roots; (4) is heat stable (retains NDM activity when heated to 65 °C for 20 minutes); (5) is readily degraded by a proteinase representative of environmental conditions as well as degradation by environmental factors such as oxidation and hydrolysis; (6) exhibits a rat acute oral toxicity (LD50) of greater than 5,000 mg product/kg body weight.

	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. NA-Remove

	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. An analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue for PDHP 25279 is not applicable.  Considering the lack of toxicity observed in toxicology studies, it is expected that, when used as proposed, PDHP 25279 would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

	Studies to evaluate the safety to mammals were conducted on PDHP 25279 (acute oral toxicity and acute inhalation toxicity) or another PDHP (PDHP 91398) that has an almost identical amino acid sequence. The PDHPs have low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes. For PDHP 25279, the acute oral LD50 was >5000 mg/kg bw and the acute inhalation LC50 was >2.11 mg/L, which corresponds to EPA Toxicity Category IV by both routes. The substantially similar PDHP 91398 peptide also demonstrated acute oral and dermal LD50 values >5,000 mg/kg bw and was minimally irritating to the skin and eyes of rabbits, resulting in an EPA Toxicity Category IV for these routes of exposure. PDHP 91398 was not a dermal sensitizer.

D. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure from use of PDHP 25279 as proposed is minimal based on the very low proposed pre-harvest application rates and rate of degradation.

	i. Food.  The results of toxicity testing following acute oral exposure, the route most relevant to assessment of risks to health from exposure to food, indicate there is no risk to human health from PDHP 25279. There are no reports of human health hazards related to oral exposure to other PDHPs or to the parent harpin or harpinαβ proteins, which have been registered for years. The absence of acute toxicity in laboratory animals following oral and inhalation exposures to high doses of the product demonstrates the benign nature of PDHP 25279. Finally, PDHPs degrade rapidly in the field and so residues on crops are not expected.

	ii. Drinking water. Exposure of humans to residues of PDHP 25279 in drinking water would be minimal based on the proposed product application rates and rate of degradation of the active ingredient.  Results of the acute oral toxicity testing have shown that PDHP 25279 is non-toxic at the highest test dose (LD50 >5000 mg/kg bw). Additionally, results of the acute inhalation toxicity testing have also shown low toxicity (LC50 >2.11 mg/L).  There are no reports of human health hazards related to oral exposure to the parent proteins, harpin or harpinαβ. The absence of acute toxicity in laboratory animals following oral and inhalation exposure to high doses of the product demonstrates the nontoxic nature of PDHP 25279.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. The potential for non-dietary exposure to the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the proposed use sites are application to growing plants or crops or seeds. The results of toxicity testing discussed above indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from PDHP 25279. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards related to oral exposure to harpin or harpinαβ proteins. The absence of acute toxicity in laboratory animals following oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to high doses of PDHP 25279 demonstrates the benign nature of the product.

E. Cumulative Effects

	Section 408(b)(2)(D) (9v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." There is no indication that PDHP 25279 acts by a common mechanism of action with other compounds to result in any cumulative effects.

F. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Acute toxicity studies have shown that PDHPs are non-toxic to mammals when exposure is through oral, dermal, and inhalation routes and also lack irritation potential in mammals. There are no reports of human health hazards caused by the proteins from which PDHP 25279 is derived, harpin and harpinαβ. The lack of acute toxicity indicates that the hazard associated with the use of PDHP 25279 is low. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general United States population from exposure to this active ingredient.

	2. Infants and children. It is not expected that, when used as proposed, PDHP25279 would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure to PDHP 25279 from the proposed uses.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

	To date, there is no evidence to suggest that PDHP 25279 functions in a manner toxic to the immune system, similar to any known hormone, or that it can act as an endocrine disrupter.

H. Existing Tolerances

	There are no current tolerances or tolerance exemptions in place for PDHP 25279.

I. International Tolerances

	There are no current tolerances or tolerance exemptions in place for PDHP 25279.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 33899]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2087-000]

Hog Creek Wind Project, 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
Hog Creek Wind Project, 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 3, 2017.
    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 should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 14, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15330 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P