[Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2310-2311]
[DOCID:fr18ja07-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH); Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and
Health (MACOSH) was established to advise the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on issues relating to
occupational safety and health in the maritime industries. The purpose
of this Federal Register notice is to announce the MACOSH and workgroup
meetings scheduled for February 7 and 8, 2007.

DATES: The workgroups will meet on February 7, 2007 from 8:30 a.m.
until approximately 4 p.m. The MACOSH Committee will meet on February
8, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the Sheraton Inner Harbor, 300
South Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. On Wednesday February
7, 2007, the workgroups will meet in the Severn II and Severn III
rooms. On Thursday February 8, 2007, the MACOSH Committee will meet in
the Chesapeake I room.
    Mail comments, views, or statements in response to this notice to
Jim Maddux, Director, Office of Maritime, OSHA, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about MACOSH
and this meeting contact: Jim Maddux, Director, Office of Maritime,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Individuals with
disabilities wishing to attend the meeting should contact Vanessa L.
Welch at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than January 31, 2007 to obtain
appropriate accommodations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All MACOSH meetings, including work group
meetings, are open to the public. All interested persons are invited to
attend the MACOSH meetings at the times and places listed above. OSHA
has formed five MACOSH workgroups and assigned each workgroup a number
of occupational safety and health topics. Each workgroup may discuss
one or more of the topics listed below as time permits:
    Health workgroup: beryllium, radiation, welding fumes, and diesel
emissions;
    Longshoring workgroup: radio communications with crane operators,
traffic safety, cargo ship design issues, and maintenance and repair
cross training;
    Cranes and falls workgroup: scaffold erection and disassembly,
lashing platforms, inflatable personal flotation devices, and fall
protection systems;
    Shipyard workgroup: review of OSHA Safety and Health Injury
Prevention Sheet (SHIPS) on ship-fitting, hot work on coatings, and
ship module placement; and
    Outreach workgroup: leading indicators, root cause analysis,
industry pocket guides; and Hispanic worker issues.

The agenda for the full committee will include reports from each
workgroup and a discussion of shipyard and marine terminal injury and
illness data.
    Public Participation: Written data, views or comments for
consideration by MACOSH on the various agenda items listed above should
be submitted to Vanessa L. Welch at the address listed above.
Submissions received by January 31, 2007 will be provided to Committee
members and will be included in the record of the meeting. Requests to
make oral presentations to the Committee may be granted as time
permits. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Committee
on any of the agenda items listed above should notify Vanessa L. Welch
by January 31, 2007. The request should state the amount of time
desired, the capacity in which the person will appear, and a brief
outline of the content of the presentation.
    Authority: Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and 29 CFR part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of January, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
 [FR Doc. E7-606 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6039-6042]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0680; FRL-9399-01-OCSPP]

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, Polymer
With Poly(isocyanatoalkyl) Benzene, Alkylol-Blocked; Tolerance
Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-
blocked when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. BYK USA Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with

poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 3, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 4, 2022, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0680, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0680 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 4, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0680, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2021 (86 FR 58239) (FRL-
8792-04-OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11586) filed by BYK USA Inc., 524 South Cherry St., Wallingford, CT
06492. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-,
polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked (No CAS
Reg. No Associated). That document included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's
request. The Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no

harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-
blocked conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR
723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify
low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW of 18,721 Daltons is greater
than or equal to 10,000 daltons. However, the polymer contains less
than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 (0%) and less than 5%
oligomeric material below MW 1,000 (1.1%).
    Thus, Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-,
polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked meets the
criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250.
Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian
toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-a-hydro-m-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-
[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-
blocked could be present in all raw and processed agricultural
commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary
exposure was possible. The number average MW of Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked is 18,721 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked conforms to the criteria
that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks
associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably
foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not
necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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.'' EPA has not found Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed Poly(oxy-
1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-
hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene,
alkylol-blocked.

VII. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VIII. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of Poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-, polymer with
poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked from the requirement of
a tolerance will be safe.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 20, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, amend table 1 by adding, in alphabetical order,
the polymer ``Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-,
polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-blocked, number
average molecular weight (Mn), 18,721'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Polymer                                                  CAS No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-[alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxy-  (No CAS Reg. No. Associated).
 , polymer with poly(isocyanatoalkyl) benzene, alkylol-
 blocked, number average molecular weight (Mn), 18,721.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-02100 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2180-2182]
[FR Doc No: 2011-435]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63647; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-148]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Certain
Membership Rules Including Affiliations and Lapse of Membership
Applications

January 5, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On November 5, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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
relating to certain membership rules. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010.\3\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63318 (November 16,
2010), 75 FR 71155 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Affiliations

    Currently, Phlx Rule 793 (``Affiliations--Dual or Multiple'')
allows a person that holds a Phlx trading permit to associate or
affiliate with one or more Phlx members or a non-member that is engaged
in the securities business if such affiliation is approved in writing
by the member and disclosed to the Exchange.\4\ However, no member may
use his or her trading permit to qualify more than one member
organization. Further, the rule provides that the Exchange could
disapprove multiple affiliations that the Exchange believed were
``inconsistent with Exchange standards of financial responsibility,
operational capability, or compliance responsibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, the rule provides that ``[n]o person shall at
the same time be a partner, * * * officer, director, stockholder, or
associated person of more than one member or participant
organization, nor shall he be affiliated in any manner with a non-
member or non-participant organization which is engaged in the
securities business, unless such affiliation has been disclosed to
and approved in writing by the member and/or participant
organizations and such approval has been filed with the Office of
the Secretary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, Rule 793 allows a broker-dealer to seek an
affiliation in order to obtain membership status without the need to
secure a membership seat (or, subsequent to the Exchange's
demutualization, a trading permit). Such an arrangement would have been
appropriate, for example, where a broker-dealer sought only electronic
access to the Exchange, since the Exchange only requires one permit to
qualify a member organization. Another example would be applicable in
the case of access to the Phlx trading floor. Because Phlx requires
each person associated with a member organization on the trading floor
who functions in a trading capacity to have a permit, and every trader
on the floor must possess a Series A-1 permit,\5\ affiliation could
allow floor traders to affiliate with another member organization to
satisfy certain trading or staffing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, a Series A-1 permit holder is required to
display a badge when on the trading floor that identifies the member
organization on whose behalf the trader is trading that day. A
Series A-1 permit holder may not trade for more than one member
organization on the same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to eliminate Rule 793. In its place, the
Exchange proposes to amend existing Rule 908 (``Rights and Privileges
of A-1 Permits'') to add a new paragraph (b)(i) to allow a trading
permit holder on the Exchange's floor to affiliate with up to two
member organizations that are under common ownership. Specifically, the
proposed rule provides that: ``[n]otwithstanding applicable By-Laws and
Rules conditioning membership, a Series A-1 permit holder on the
Exchange's trading floor may be affiliated with up to two (2) member
organizations (a primary and a secondary member organization) that are
under common ownership * * *.'' The proposed rule would define ``common
ownership'' to be at least 75% common ownership between the member
organizations. Further, both the primary and secondary member
organizations would need to notify the Phlx Membership Department of
the affiliation, and such notification must include an attestation of
common ownership, the names of the individuals responsible for
supervision of the permit holder, and the Exchange account numbers for
billing purposes. Under the proposed rule, a Series A-1 permit holder
would have the ability to engage in trading activity on the Exchange's
floor on behalf of either the primary or secondary member organization
that the permit is affiliated with per Rule 908(b)(i).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Series A-1 permit holder may not trade for more than one
member organization on the same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the ability to affiliate with up to two member
organizations, the

proposal provides that a Series A-1 permit holder would be required to
comply with all current membership By-Laws and Rules. Further, both the
permit holder and the affiliated member organizations also must comply
with all applicable trading, registration, qualification, examination,
and other membership requirements. In particular, the Series A-1 permit
holder is required to obtain and maintain all necessary qualifications
(including examinations) and registrations. In addition, the Series A-1
permit holder would be required to disclose to the Exchange the
individuals at each member organization (both the primary and secondary
member organization) that are responsible for supervising the Series A-
1 permit holder.
    As a consequence of the proposal, any Series A-1 permit holder that
currently affiliates with an unrelated party would not be permitted to
continue to qualify that member organization. In addition, a permit
holder would not be permitted to maintain an affiliation with more than
two member organizations, and both organizations must be under common
ownership.
    In recognition of the proposed deletion of Rule 793 and new Rule
908(b)(i), the Exchange also proposed to make conforming changes to
other rules that reference affiliation. In particular, the Exchange
proposed to amend Option Floor Procedure Advice (``OFPA'') F-9 to
conform to new Rule 908(b)(i).\7\ In addition, the Exchange would
remove references to ``dual affiliation'' in OFPA F-11 and Regulation 3
in favor of a reference simply to ``affiliation,'' and would replace a
reference to Rule 793 with Rule 908 in OFPA F-11. The Exchange further
would amend Rule 908(h) to add an ``or'' to the text of the rule to
make clear that a permit may be transferred either intra-firm or to an
inactive nominee registered with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In particular, the Exchange proposed in F-9 to remove
references to ``dual'' so that the rule simply refers to
affiliations; to require reports of affiliations to be sent to the
Membership Department instead of the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary to conform with the text of amended Rule 908; replace the
reference to Rule 793, which is being deleted, with a reference to
Rule 908; amend the language in OFPA F-9 to remove the requirements
to explain compensation since affiliations would only be permitted
for organizations that are under common ownership; and add a
sentence indicating that floor members must adhere to the
requirements in renamed (a) and (b), and to reference Exchange Rule
1020 for the newly named F-9(ii)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Lapsed Applications

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 900.2 to address
lapsed membership applications. Pursuant to Exchange Rule 900.2,
applicants desiring membership in the Exchange are required to submit
information in a form prescribed by the Membership Department.\8\
According to the Exchange, after a 90 calendar day period has elapsed,
the information provided by the applicant is stale and no longer
provides a reliable or reasonable basis for the Exchange to make a
determination on admitting a person for membership.\9\ The Exchange
represented that the Membership Department expends a considerable
amount of resources requesting updates from members and researching
information to make a reasonable determination when an application is
outdated.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Membership Department posts the requisite forms on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=membership_phlx. The Membership Department updates
the forms from time to time and makes them available on this Web
site.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 71157.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this situation, the Exchange proposed to amend Exchange
Rule 900.2 \11\ to require persons seeking membership to the Exchange
to provide all information and respond to subsequent requests from the
Membership Department for information within a 90 calendar day period.
Any failure to respond in the prescribed period would result in the
application lapsing. If an application lapses, the person would be
required to submit a new application if it wants to continue with its
application.\12\ Upon a showing of good cause, the Exchange may extend
the timeframe.\13\ The Exchange would not refund the fee associated
with submitting an application and the applicant would be required to
pay a new fee to resubmit the application if it chooses to proceed with
its application for membership.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Commission notes that the Exchange proposed to renumber
Rule 900.2(e) as 900.2(f) due to the new proposed Rule 900.2(e).
    \12\ The purpose of the new application would be to update all
information to provide the Membership Department with current
information on which to base a decision to accept the applicant for
membership. The Exchange expressed its intent to file a proposal
with the Commission to amend its Fee Schedule to reflect the lapsed
application fee.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 71157. The Exchange also may
extend the time period when it makes a request for additional
information relatively close to the 90-day deadline. See id.
    \14\ The Exchange's Application Fee can be found on the Fee
Schedule located on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/content/marketregulation/membership/phlx/feesched.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 III. Discussion

    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,\15\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in
that the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
prevents fraudulent and manipulative acts, removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the proposal, which limits the ability of a
Series A-1 permit holder to qualify other organizations for Exchange
membership is reasonable, as it will continue to allow flexibility in
permitting a permit holder to qualify up to one other member
organization (the ``secondary member organization'') for Exchange
membership that is under common ownership with the primary member
organization with which the permit holder is associated. While the
Commission notes that based on the proposal, a Series A-1 permit holder
who currently affiliates with an unrelated member organization (not
under common ownership) to qualify the member organization for
electronic access or access to the trading floor would not be permitted
to continue to qualify that member organization, the Commission
believes that the proposal is a reasonable alternative that may assist
firms in addressing staffing issues for entities under a common
ownership that conduct a floor-based trading business.
    The Exchange's proposal recognizes the changed environment in terms
of the means by which persons obtain access to the Exchange. Current
Rule 793 was adopted when the Exchange was a membership organization
and access was obtained through ownership of a limited number of seats
on the Exchange. Rule 793 allows persons to access and trade on the
Exchange that might not have otherwise been able to purchase or obtain
a membership seat. However, since it demutualized, the Exchange now
offers access via an unlimited number of trading permits, which can be
more readily obtained by qualified individuals compared to former
membership seats. In this respect, the Exchange's proposal

modernizes the affiliation provision in recognition of the transition
of the Exchange from a mutual to a demutualized organization.
    Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Exchange represented in
its proposal, as described above, that the Exchange would continue to
have access to information on an affiliation necessary to carry out its
regulatory responsibility with respect to the member organizations and
their affiliated persons. Further, an affiliation would not excuse a
person from any of the Exchange's By-Laws and rules governing
membership. Notably, both the permit holder and the affiliated member
organizations must comply with all applicable registration,
qualification, examination, and other membership requirements, and the
permit holder must continue to obtain and maintain all necessary
qualifications (including examinations) and registrations. Further, the
Series A-1 permit holder must disclose to the Exchange the individuals
at each member organization (both the primary and secondary member
organization) that are responsible for supervising the Series A-1
permit holder. The Commission believes that these provisions are
designed to ensure compliance with applicable membership rules and
should assure the Exchange's oversight of any affiliation.
    In addition, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed
conforming changes to OFPA F-9, F-11, and Regulation 3 appropriately
reflect the proposed deletion of Rule 793 and the new provision in Rule
908(b)(i). Separately, the Commission believes that the proposal to
amend the language in Rule 908(h) should provide Exchange members with
clarity as to the transfer of permits.
    Finally, the Commission believes that requiring applicants for Phlx
membership to respond to requests for documentation or additional
information within a 90 calendar day period, absent a showing of good
cause, is reasonable and should provide the Exchange's Membership
Department up-to-date information that it can utilize to make decisions
concerning membership applications. The 90-day response period and
subsequent lapse of an application for non-response should encourage
prompt replies by applicants to Exchange requests for information and
documentation and should assure that the Exchange has reliable and
current information on which to base membership decisions.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2010-148) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-435 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2897-2898]
[DOCID:fr18ja11-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 06, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER04-449-023.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing of New York Independent System
Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/04/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110104-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2295-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: Errata to Response to October 26, 2010 Request for
Additional Information.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2912-001.
    Applicants: Alliance for Cooperative Energy Services.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the
Alliance for Cooperative Energy Services Power Marketing LLC.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110105-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1973-001.
    Applicants: Wildorado Wind, LLC, Golden Spread Panhandle Wind
Ranch, LLC.
    Description: Wildorado Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Revised Assignment, Contenancy and Common Facilities
Agreement with Succession to be effective 10/14/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101209-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 13, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2159-001.
    Applicants: Verso Maine Energy LLC.
    Description: Verso Maine Energy LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff 01062011 to be effective 1/18/
2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2620-000.
    Applicants: Community Wind North, LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Community Wind North, LLC.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110105-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2633-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC submits a request
for authorization to make wholesale power sales.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2634-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 52 Amended & Restated Agreement for
Supplemental Power Service to be effective 1/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2635-000.
    Applicants: Synergics Roth Rock Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Synergics Roth Rock Wind Energy, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.1: Baseline Tariff to be effective 1/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2636-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): (8) ATC Notice of
Succession to be effective 2/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2637-000.
    Applicants: Synergics Roth Rock North Wind Energy, LLC.
    Description: Synergics Roth Rock North Wind Energy, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.1: Baseline Tariff to be effective 1/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2638-000.
    Applicants: Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.15: Ridge Crest Wind Partners, LLC Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be
effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2639-000.
    Applicants: Ridge Crest Wind Partners, LLC.
    Description: Ridge Crest Wind Partners, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.1: Ridge Crest Wind Partners, LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 9/
30/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2640-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Removal of Schedule 9B of the PJM Operating Agreement
to be effective 3/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2641-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5222.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2642-000.
    Applicants: FPL Energy South Dakota Wind, LLC.
    Description: FPL Energy South Dakota Wind, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.1: South Dakota Wind Baseline Filing to be effective 1/6/
2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2643-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Power Ventures, L.P.
    Description: Entergy Power Ventures, L.P. submits tariff filing per
35.15: Cancellation of EPV to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA10-4-000.
    Applicants: Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC; Stoney Creek Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Site Control Report of Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC, et.
al. for Q4 of 2010.
    Filed Date: 01/06/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110106-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 27, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: RR10-12-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Compliance Filing of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation in Response to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's September 3, 2010 Order Approving Petition and Directing
Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101201-5273.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 24, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-899 Filed 1-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32222-32223]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12463]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0147; FRL-9816-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Atlanta,
Georgia 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further
Progress Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision, submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division, on October 21, 2009, to address the
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan requirements for the Atlanta,
Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) nonattainment area. The Atlanta, Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the ``Atlanta Area'') is
comprised of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta,
Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,
Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton Counties in Georgia.
EPA is also providing the status of its adequacy determination for the
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for volatile organic compounds
and nitrogen oxides that were included in Georgia's RFP plan. Further,
EPA is approving these MVEB. In the Final Rules Section of this issue
of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's implementation
plan revisions and providing the Agency's adequacy determination for
Georgia's MVEB as a direct final rule without prior proposal because
the Agency views these submittals as noncontroversial and anticipates
no adverse comments.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0147 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0147,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9061. Ms. Waterson can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current action, however, is being
taken to address requirements under the earlier 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Requirements for the Atlanta Area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS
will be addressed in the future. For additional information see the
direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this
Federal Register. A detailed rationale for the approval of the RFP plan
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is set forth in the direct
final rule as is information related to the adequacy determination. If
no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further
activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on the matters being proposed for
approval into the Georgia SIP today should do so at this time.

    Dated: May 13, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-12463 Filed 5-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41016-41017]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18297]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0246; FRL-9967-02-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Engine Emission Defect Information Reports
and Voluntary Emission Recall Reports (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Engine Emission Defect
Information Reports and Voluntary Emission Recall Reports (EPA ICR
Number 0282.17, OMB Control Number 2060-0048) 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 August 31, 2017. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (82 FR 29544) on
June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 28,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0246, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nydia Reyes-Morales, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6405J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Administrator is required to promulgate regulations to control air
pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and nonroad engines, as defined
in the CAA. Per Sections 207(c)(1) and 213 of the CAA, when a
substantial number of properly maintained and used engines produced by
a manufacturer do not conform to emission standards, the manufacturer
is required to recall the engines. Engine manufacturers are required to
submit Defect Information Reports (DIRs) if emission-related defects
are found on engines of the same model year that may cause the engines'
emissions to exceed the standards. EPA uses these reports to target
potentially nonconforming classes of engines for future testing, to
monitor compliance with applicable regulations and to order a recall,
if necessary. Manufacturers can also initiate a recall voluntarily by
submitting a Voluntary Emission Recall Report (VERR). VERRs and VERR
updates allow EPA to determine whether the manufacturer conducting the
recall is acting in accordance with the CAA and to examine and monitor
the effectiveness of the recall campaign.
    Forms: The forms associated with this ICR are form 5900-300
(Voluntary Emissions Recall Report); form 5900-301 (Emissions Defect
Information Report); and form 5900-302 (Voluntary Emission Recall
Quarterly Progress Report).
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of heavy-duty highway
and nonroad engines.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under the Clean Air
Act and 40 CFR parts 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 1035, 1039, 1042, 1045,
1048, 1051, 1054, 1068.
    Estimated number of respondents: 29 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion, bi-annual or quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 9,827 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $936,157 (per year), includes $5,475
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is decrease of 5,258 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to: (1) A correction on previous
estimates, and (2) a significant decrease in the estimated number of
respondents.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-18297 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P