[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46489-46490]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72747; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 515 To
Terminate the Liquidity Refresh Pause Early in Certain Situations

August 4, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On June 5, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' 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 to amend MIAX Rule 515. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 23, 2014.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments 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\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72408 (June 17,
2014), 79 FR 35625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Liquidity Refresh Pause, set forth in MIAX Rule 515(c)(2),
provides an opportunity for additional orders or quotes to be received
where an incoming order (``initiating order'') exhausts a Market
Maker's quote that was all or part of the MIAX best bid or offer
(``MBBO'') when MIAX was alone at the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO'') and there are unexecuted contracts remaining from the
initiating order. Specifically, the Liquidity Refresh Pause is utilized
in instances where (a) either the initiating order is a limit order
that crosses the NBBO or the initiating order is a market order, and
the limit order or market order could only be partially executed; (b) a
Market Maker quote was all or part of the MBBO when the MBBO is alone
at the NBBO; and (c) the Market Maker quote was exhausted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At the start of the Liquidity Refresh Pause, the system
broadcasts a ``liquidity refresh message'' to subscribers of the
Exchange's data feeds, providing a description of the option and the
size and side of the order and the exhausted MBBO price. During the
pause, the system displays the unexecuted remainder of the
initiating order at the original NBBO price (i.e., the exhausted
MBBO price) and MIAX's next bid or offer on the opposite side is
displayed as non-firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 515(c)(2) in order to
address the case where, during the Liquidity Refresh Pause, an Away
Best Bid or Offer (``ABBO'') on the same side of the market as the
initiating order (a ``same-side ABBO'') crosses the original NBBO price
on the opposite side of the market. The proposed rule change would
provide that, in such a situation, the Liquidity Refresh Pause will be
terminated early and normal trading will resume. The Exchange states
that the proposed change is designed to codify existing functionality
during the liquidity refresh pause.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 35625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples describe how a new revised same-side ABBO
that crosses the original NBBO on the opposite side of the market will
terminate the Liquidity Refresh Pause early.

    Example 1:  Same Side ABBO Terminates the Liquidity Refresh
Pause Early
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``PLMM'' is a MIAX Primary Lead Market Maker; an ``LMM''
is a MIAX Lead Market Maker; and an ``RMM'' is a MIAX Registered
Market Maker.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Bid          Ask
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBO..........................................    1.00 (10)    1.14 (10)
MIAX Book: PLMM \6\...........................    1.00 (10)    1.10 (10)
LMM 1.........................................    1.00 (10)    1.12 (10)
LMM 2.........................................    1.00 (10)    1.15 (10)
RMM 1.........................................    1.00 (10)    1.16 (10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Order 1: Buy limit of 1.13 for 20 contacts with a price
protection instruction of 3 MPVs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Executions of non-market maker orders on MIAX are subject to
the ``price protection'' provisions of Exchange Rule 515(c)(1).
Price protection prevents an order from being executed beyond the
price designated in the order's price protection instructions, which
are expressed in units of ``MPV'' away from the NBBO at the time of
the order's receipt, or the MBBO if the ABBO is crossing the MBBO.
(The MPV is the minimum price variation, or minimum increment, by
which bids and offers may be separated.) Market participants may
designate or disable price protection instructions on an order by
order basis. The default price protection is one MPV. When
triggered, price protection cancels an order or the remaining
contracts of an order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NBBO at time of Order 1's arrival = 1.00 (50) x 1.10
(10).
     Order 1 is price protected at 1.13 (which is 1.10 + 3
MPV = 1.13).
     Order 1 trades 10 contracts with PLMM @1.10.
     Liquidity Refresh Pause is triggered because the MBO of
1.10 \8\ was alone at NBBO and PLMM's 1.10 offer was exhausted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``MBO'' and ``MBB'' refer to the two components of the MBBO
separately. ``NBB'' and ``NBO'' and ``ABB'' and ``ABO'' and are the
equivalent conventions used for components of the ABBO and MBBO
separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     New MBBO = 1.10 (10) x 1.12 (10). \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The remaining 10 contracts of Order 1 to buy are posted at
1.10 (the price at which the first 10 contracts were bought), which
becomes the new MBB. Note that the new MBO is displayed as non-firm.
See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ABB updates to 1.12 for 10 contracts; ABBO = 1.12 (10)
x 1.14 (10).
     Liquidity Refresh Pause is terminated early due to the
ABB crossing the original NBO of 1.10.
     Because no responses to the Liquidity Refresh Pause
were received before it terminated early, Order 1 trades 10
contracts with LMM1 @1.12, after which Order 1 has been fully
executed.
     New MBBO: 1.00 (40) x 1.15 (10). New NBBO: 1.12 (10) x
1.14 (10).

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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, 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.
The Commission believes that the proposal is reasonable in its
rationale that terminating the Liquidity Refresh Pause, when the ABBO
on the same side of the market as the initiating order crosses the
original NBBO price on the opposite side of the market, could allow
interest in the Liquidity Refresh Pause to execute, because a move of
this kind in the ABBO indicates that conditions may be changing so as
to render the initiating order and same side orders/quotes no longer
marketable. Terminating the Liquidity Refresh Pause early and
permitting normal trading to resume may thus provide an opportunity for
the broker routing the initiating order or any remainder thereof to
further pursue an execution, assuming that subsequent responses to the
Liquidity Refresh Pause would be unlikely when the ABBO moves in such a
manner, even if the pause were to run its full course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MIAX-2014-28), is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18745 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


assessor (certified pursuant to either Federal regulations at Sec.
745.226 or an EPA-authorized State or Tribal certification program).
    (ii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after using EPA-
recognized test kits, including an identification of the manufacturer
and model of any test kits used, a description of the components that
were tested including their locations, and the result of each test kit
used.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) When the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or
within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is
earlier, the renovation firm must provide information pertaining to
compliance with this subpart to the following persons:
    (i) The owner of the building; and, if different,
    (ii) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the
renovation took place within a residential dwelling, or an adult
representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation took
place within a child-occupied facility.
    (2) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit
target housing, renovation firms must post the information required by
this subpart or instructions on how interested occupants can obtain a
copy of this information. This information must be posted in areas
where it is likely to be seen by the occupants of all of the affected
units.
    (3) The information required to be provided by paragraph (c) of
this section may be provided by completing the sample form titled
``Sample Renovation Recordkeeping Checklist'' or a similar form
containing the test kit information required by Sec.  745.86(b)(1)(ii)
and the training and work practice compliance information required by
Sec.  745.86(b)(6).
    (d) If dust clearance sampling is performed in lieu of cleaning
verification as permitted by Sec.  745.85(c), the renovation firm must
provide, when the final invoice for the renovation is delivered or
within 30 days of the completion of the renovation, whichever is
earlier, a copy of the dust sampling report to:
    (1) The owner of the building; and, if different,
    (2) An adult occupant of the residential dwelling, if the
renovation took place within a residential dwelling, or an adult
representative of the child-occupied facility, if the renovation took
place within a child-occupied facility.
    (3) When performing renovations in common areas of multi-unit
target housing, renovation firms must post these dust sampling reports
or information on how interested occupants of the housing being
renovated can obtain a copy of the report. This information must be
posted in areas where they are likely to be seen by the occupants of
all of the affected units.

0
6. In Sec.  745.90, revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(8) to read as
follows:

Sec.  745.90  Renovator certification and dust sampling technician
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician
certification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling
technician refresher course accredited by EPA under Sec.  745.225 or by
a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this
part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial
course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual
does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual
must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals
who complete a renovator course accredited by EPA before April 22,
2010, must complete an EPA-accredited renovator refresher course before
July 1, 2015, to maintain renovator certification.
    (b) * * *
    (8) Must prepare the records required by Sec.  745.86(b)(1) and
(b)(6).
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  745.225, revise paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: Target housing and
child-occupied facilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited
or EPA-authorized State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training for
instructors of lead-based paint activities courses or 8 hours of any
EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized State or Tribal-accredited lead-
specific training for instructors of renovator or dust sampling
technician courses; and
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  745.326, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  745.326  Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) Revisions to renovation program requirements. When EPA
publishes in the Federal Register revisions to the renovation program
requirements contained in subparts E and L of this part:
    (1) A State or Tribe with a renovation program approved before the
effective date of the revisions to the renovation program requirements
in subparts E and L of this part must demonstrate that it meets the
requirements of this section no later than the first report that it
submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h) but no later than 2 years after
the effective date of the revisions.
    (2) A State or Tribe with an application for approval of a
renovation program submitted but not approved before the effective date
of the revisions to the renovation program requirements in subparts E
and L of this part must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of
this section either by amending its application or in the first report
that it submits pursuant to Sec.  745.324(h) of this part but no later
than 2 years after the effective date of the revisions.
    (3) A State or Tribe submitting its application for approval of a
renovation program on or after the effective date of the revisions must
demonstrate in its application that it meets the requirements of the
new renovation program requirements in subparts E and L of this part.

[FR Doc. 2010-10100 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2564]
[FR Doc No: C1-2020-23353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 106, 107, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179,
and 180

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0082 (HM-260A)]
RIN 2137-AF43

Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications

Correction

    In rule document 2020-23353 appearing on pages 83366 through 83403
in the issue of Monday, December 21, 2020, make the following
correction:
    (1) On page 83366, in the DATES section, change ``January 20,
2021'' to read ``January 21, 2021.''
    (2) On page 83366, in the second column, on line twenty-nine change
``January 20, 2021'' to read ``January 21, 2021.''

[FR Doc. C1-2020-23353 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register: May 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30616-30617]
[DOCID:fr28my08-48]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-1116, FRL-8571-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Facility Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0959.13; OMB Control No. 2050-0033

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2007-1116, to (1) EPA, either online using http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: RCRA Docket (28221T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB, by mail
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schoenborn, Office of Solid
Waste, (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-
308-8483; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On January 25, 2008 (73 FR 4554), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment during the
comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-1116, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Facility Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0959.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0033.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR examines the ground-water monitoring standards
for permitted and interim status facilities at 40 CFR parts 264 and
265, as specified. The ground-water monitoring requirements for
regulated units follow a tiered approach whereby releases of hazardous
contaminants are first detected (detection monitoring), then confirmed
(compliance monitoring), and if necessary, are required to be cleaned
up (corrective action). Each of these tiers requires collection and
analysis of ground-water samples. Owners or operators that conduct
ground-water monitoring are required to report information to the
oversight agencies on releases of contaminants and to maintain records
of ground-water monitoring data at their facilities. The goal of the
ground-water monitoring program is to prevent and quickly detect
releases of hazardous contaminants to groundwater, and to establish a
program whereby any contamination is expeditiously cleaned up as
necessary to protect human health and environment. Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) creates a
comprehensive program for the safe management of hazardous waste.
Section 3004 of RCRA requires owners and operators of facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to comply with

standards established by EPA that are to protect the environment.
Section 3005 provides for implementation of these standards under
permits issued to owners and operators by EPA or authorized States.
Section 3005 also allows owners and operators of facilities in
existence when the regulations came into effect to comply with
applicable notice requirements to operate until a permit is issued or
denied. This statutory authorization to operate prior to permit
determination is commonly known as ``interim status.'' Owners and
operators of interim status facilities also must comply with standards
set under Section 3004.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 123
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Business or other for-profit; and
State, local, or Tribal governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 989.
    Frequency of Response: quarterly, semi-annually, and annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 121,577.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $27,818,073, includes $4,628,246
annualized labor and $23,189,829 capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 26,380 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. The reason for the increase in hourly burden is
an increase in the universe from 824 for the previous ICR to 989 for
this renewal, which can be explained by improvements in the RCRAInfo
database, allowing for more accurate counts.

    Dated: May 21, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-11888 Filed 5-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48860-48861]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17573]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78367; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal
of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of ``Block'' for
Purposes of Rule 72(d)--Equities and the Size of a Proposed Cross
Transaction Eligible for the Cross Function in Rule 76--Equities

July 20, 2016.
    On April 22, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
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 to
amend its rules relating to pre-opening indications and opening
procedures. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2016.\3\ The Commission received no comments
on the proposed rule change. On May 31, 2016, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\

On July 18, 2016, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (File
No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77734 (Apr. 27,
2016), 81 FR 26598.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77951, 81 FR 36367
(June 6, 2016). The Commission designated August 1, 2016, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17573 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32151-32153]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13085]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67053; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 616, Electronic Filing Requirements for Uniform Forms

May 24, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on May 18, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 616, Electronic Filing
Requirements for Uniform Forms.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to correct Rule 616 to
correspond to amended Equity Floor Procedure Advice (``EFPA'') A-7 and
Options Floor Procedure Advice (``OFPA'') F-34 (together, the
``Advices'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advices are administered pursuant to the Exchange's
minor rule violation plan, which specifies those uncontested minor
rule violations with sanctions not exceeding $2,500 that would not
be subject to the provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) under the Act. Rule
19d-1(c) allows SROs to submit for Commission approval plans for the
abbreviated reporting of minor disciplinary infractions. Any
disciplinary action taken by an SRO against any person for violation
of a rule of the SRO which has been designated as a minor rule
violation pursuant to such a plan will not be considered ``final''
for purposes of Section 19(d)(1) of the Act if the sanction imposed
consists of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and the sanctioned person
has not sought an adjudication, including a hearing, or otherwise
exhausted his administrative remedies. See 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, the Exchange adopted Rule 616, Electronic Filing
Requirements for Uniform Forms, to provide that forms required to be
filed under the Rule 600 Series shall be filed electronically through
WebCRD and initial filings and amendments of Forms U4 and U5 be
submitted electronically.\6\ Furthermore, as part of the member
organization's recordkeeping requirements, Rule 616 requires that it
shall retain such records for a period of not less than three years,
the first two years in an easily accessible place, in accordance with
Rule 17a-4 under the Act,\7\ and make such records available promptly
upon regulatory request. In addition, every application for
registration filed with the Exchange shall be kept current at all times
by supplementary amendments via electronic filing or such other process
as the Exchange may prescribe. Such amendments shall be filed not later
than 30 days after the applicant learns of the facts or circumstances
giving rise to the need for the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66840 (April 20,
2012), 77 FR 25003 (April 26, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-23).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also amended OFPA F-34 and EFPA A-7, both titled
Failure to Timely Submit Amendments to Form U4, Form U5 and Form BD, to
add various new rule numbers, including Rule 616. Each provides that
any member, and member organization that is required to file Form U4,
Form U5 or Form BD pursuant to Exchange Rules 600, 611-613, 616, or
620, or the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, is required to
amend the applicable Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD to keep such forms
current at all times. Members, and member organizations must amend Form
U4, Form U5 or Form BD not later than thirty (30) days after the filer
knew or should have known of the facts which gave rise to the need for
the amendment.
    When adopting Rule 616, the language ``or should have known of''
was omitted from the rule, although it appears in the Advices. As a
result, a member who should have known of the facts which gave rise to
the need for an amendment to a Form U4, Form U5 or a Form BD could be
violating the Advice, but not Rule 616. Because Rule 616 was intended
to codify the electronic filing requirements into a single rule, the
Exchange believes it is preferable for the rule language to better
match the Advice language.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by ensuring that the Exchange's rules are clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-71 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-71. This file

number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-71 and should be submitted on
or before June 21, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13085 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76389-76391]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In June 2013,
there were five applications approved. Additionally, five approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: City of Aberdeen, South Dakota.
    Application Number: 13-03-C-00-ABR.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $542,552.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: June 1, 2019.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

PFC audit costs, 2001 through 2011.
Master plan and airport layout plan.
Regulator for runway 17/35.
Install new gate.
Develop plans and specifications for snow removal equipment building.
Airport layout plan update/revisions.
Acquire snow removal equipment (snow chute).
Acquire snow removal equipment (two 8-foot blades).
Acquire snow removal equipment (tow-behind broom).
Acquire snow removal equipment (motor grader).
Security vehicle.
Construction of snow removal equipment building.
Construction of snow removal equipment building (engineering/design).
Construction of snow removal equipment building (geothermal heat
system).
Hangar taxi lane improvements.
Hangar taxi lane improvements (engineering/design).
Master plan update.
Acquire snow removal equipment (two skid steers).
Reconstruction of taxiway D and installation of taxiway lighting.
Engineering for taxiway D reconstruction and lighting.

    Decision Date: June 5, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Anderson, Bismarck Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Nez Perce and City of Lewiston, Lewiston,
Idaho.
    Application Number: 13-04-C-00-LWS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.

    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,073,616.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2013.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2019.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Nonscheduled/
on-demand air carriers using aircraft with a seating capacity of less
than 20 passengers operating at Lewiston--Nez Perce County Regional
Airport (LWS).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at LWS.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:

Security enhancements.
Taxiways B, C, and D reconstruction.
Master plan update.
Rehabilitate terminal apron.
Passenger loading bridge.
Wildlife hazard management program.
Southside partial parallel taxiway construction.
Runway 8/26 rehabilitation and blast pad installation.
Airport master plan update.
Apron reconstruction.
Snow removal equipment acquisition.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting building construction.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment acquisition.
Runway 12/30 rehabilitation.
Runway 12/30 lighting installation.
Taxiway D and midfield apron construction.
Taxiway lighting installation.
    Decision Date: June 7, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    Application Number: 13-17-C-00-MKE.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $3.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $32,553,528.
    Charge Effective Date: February 1, 2024.
    Charge Expiration Date: November 1, 2026.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 and operating at General
Mitchell International Airport (MKE).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at MKE.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Taxiway B reconstruction.
Perimeter fencing.
Perimeter road bridge over Howell Avenue--design and construction.
Cargo deicer collection--construction.
Perimeter road extension (128th to College Avenue).
Baggage claim area expansion--construction.
Purchase new passenger loading bridges and related improvements--design
and construction.
Redundant main electrical service feed--construction.
Expansion of fleet portion of combined maintenance facility--
construction.
Terminal roadway signage--construction.
Taxiways R, R3, and Q reconstruction--design.
Master plan update completion/airport geographic information system.

    Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection and
Use: Runway 7R deicer pad--design and construction.
    Determination: Partially approved. The deicing control center was
determined to be an operational costs and, as such, did not meet the
requirements of Sec.  158.15(b).
    Decision Date: June 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Depottey, Minneapolis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Lee County Port Authority, Fort Myers, Florida.
    Application Number: 13-08-C-00-RSW.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $20,554,824.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: October 1, 2018.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2020.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: All air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 and operating at Southwest
Florida International Airport (RSW).
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at RSW.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level: Air traffic control tower/terminal approach control
building design and construction.
    Brief Description of Project Approved For Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level: PFC implementation and administrative costs.
    Decision Date: June 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: Counties of Lackawanna and Luzerne, Avoca,
Pennsylvania.
    Application Number: 13-09-C-00-AVP.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,452,563.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2020.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2029.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Rehabilitate landside roadway.
Replace runway 4/22 lighting and transformers.
Replace runway surface sensor systems.
Rehabilitate taxiway B design and construct.
Replace aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment.
Upgrade electronic exit lane systems.
Acquire equipment--replace plow vehicles and spreaders.
Acquire security equipment--security system card readers and security
surveillance cameras.
Replace security vehicles and equipment.
Extend and rehabilitate apron (airline).
Demolish old passenger terminal building for new apron.
Replace airfield generator.
Install precision approach path indicators, runway 10.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:
Install airfield perimeter wildlife fence.
Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle--1500 gallon.
Rehabilitate taxiway D and shoulders--design and construct.
Expand terminal baggage area--design and construct.
Construct east side access road.

    Brief Description of Disapproved Projects: Design and construct
taxiway B extension.
    Determination: Project does not meet the requirements of Sec.
158.30(c). Design and construct terminal customs area renovations.
    Determination: Project does not meet the requirements of Sec.
158.15(c). Safety management systems implementation.

    Determination: Project does not meet the requirements of Sec.
158.15(b). Rehabilitate general aviation and terminal aprons--
sealcoating.
    Determination: Project determined to be routine maintenance and as
such does not meet the requirements of Sec.  158.15(b).
    Expand fuel farm.
    Determination: Project does not meet the requirements of Sec.
158.15(b).
    Rehabilitate public access roads.
    Determination: Project does not meet the requirements of Sec.
158.15(b).
    Decision Date: June 20, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., city, state     approved  date   approved  Net   approved  net   charge  exp.    charge  exp.
                                                   PFC  revenue    PFC  revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94-01-C-05-FLL, Fort Lauderdale,        06/12/13     $46,592,957     $40,036,449        09/01/98        09/01/98
 FL.............................
98-02-C-04-FLL, Fort Lauderdale,        06/12/13     181,471,378     181,471,378        09/01/05        09/01/05
 FL.............................
11-12-C-01-BUR, Burbank, CA.....        06/13/13       3,917,000       3,937,000        08/01/19        10/01/19
03-15-C-02-CHO, Charlottesville,        06/18/13         850,000         514,872        02/01/07        02/01/07
 VA.............................
11-08-C-01-AVP, Avoca, PA.......        06/20/13       2,842,784       5,036,660        10/01/24        11/01/20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2013.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2013-29925 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12823-12824]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04246]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0004]

Notice of Joint Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated January 10, 2013, The Belt Railway Company of
Chicago (BRC) and

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) have jointly petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2013-0004.

Applicants:
    The Belt Railway Company of Chicago, Mr. Randall D. Smith, Chief
Engineer, 6900 South Central Avenue, Bedford Park, Illinois 60638.
    CSX Transportation, Inc., Mr. David B. Olson, Chief Engineer
Communication and Signals, 500 Water Street, Speed Code J-350,
Jacksonville, Florida 32202.

    BRC and CSX seek joint approval of the proposed discontinuance and
removal of the power operated derails, Numbers 11 and 13, on BRC Main
Track (MT) 1 and MT 2 at Milepost 13.32 on the Kenton Subdivision, in
Chicago, IL. The location is referred to as the Forest Hill
Interlocking by BRC and as the 75th Street Interlocking by CSX. The
subject interlocking is equipped with absolute signals in all quadrants
and is controlled by CSX. The maximum authorized speed is 25 mph. BRC
and CSX seek to make these changes in order to improve fluidity through
the interlocking.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by April 11, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-04246 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 34748]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13495-000]

FFP Project 85, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 85, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Missouri Sister Island
Hydrokinetic Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in
Mississippi County, Missouri and Alexander County, Illinois.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Missouri Sister Island Hydrokinetic Project consists
of: (1) 4, 118 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a
total installed capacity of 164.72 megawatts; (2) a 5.5-mile-long, 69
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Missouri Sister Island Hydrokinetic Project would have an
average annual generation of 721 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13495) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16988 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Page 1 of 8 Memorandum From: Lynn Zipf USEPA/ OW/ OST ph: ( 202) 566 1429 zipf. lynn@ epa. gov To: 304( m) Record ( EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074)

Date: December 03, 2003 Re: Revisions to EAD's Toxic Weighting Factor Methodology parameters The purpose of this memorandum is to detail the revisions to the Toxic Weighting Factor ( TWFs) methodology as well as set forth which TWFs will be revised for the final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005.

The TWFs are intended for use in the cost effectiveness ( CE) analysis of effluent guidelines. TWFs account for differences in toxicity among the pollutants of concern and provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants on the basis of their toxic potential. For example, a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per year ( lb/ yr) may be multiplied by a pollutant specific weighting factor to derive a " toxic equivalent" loading ( lb equivalent/ yr). The cost effectiveness ( in dollars per pound equivalent removed) of implementing various treatment options may be compared by summing mass load reductions on a toxic equivalent basis and dividing the sum into the total estimated cost.

TWFs are derived from chronic aquatic life criteria ( or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria ( or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of fish. For carcinogenic substances, EPA sets the human health risk level at 10 5 ( i. e., protective to a level allowing 1 in 100,000 excess lifetime cancer cases over background). In the TWF method for assessing waterbased effects, these toxicity levels of pollutants of concern are compared to a benchmark value that represents the toxicity level of a specified pollutant. EPA selected copper, a toxic metal commonly detected and removed from industrial effluent, as the benchmark pollutant. EPA used copper in previous TWF calculations for the cost effectiveness analysis of effluent guidelines. Although EPA revised the water quality criterion for copper in 1998 ( to 9.0 micrograms per liter [

g/ L]), the TWF method uses the former criterion ( 5.6

g/ L) to facilitate comparisons with costeffectiveness values calculated for other regulations. The former criterion for copper ( 5.6

g/ L) was reported in the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper document ( U. S. EPA, 1980).

To calculate TWF values, EPA adds TWFs for aquatic life effects and for human health effects for each pollutant of concern. EPA uses chronic effects on aquatic life and human health Page 2 of 8 TWF

5.6 AQ  5.6 HHOO effects from ingesting contaminated organisms ( HHOO) as the basis for TWFs. The calculation is performed by dividing aquatic life and human health criteria ( or toxic effect levels) for each pollutant, expressed as a concentration in micrograms per liter (

g/ L), into the former copper criterion of 5.6

g/ L:

where: TWF = toxic weighting factor AQ = chronic aquatic life value (

g/ L) HHOO = human health ( ingesting organisms only) value (

g/ L)

Human Health Values EPA addresses potential human health toxicity for TWFs using the HHOO, human health ( ingesting organisms only) criterion or toxic effect level. For PWFs, the HHWO, human health ( ingesting water and organisms) criterion or toxic effect level is used. EPA uses the following hierarchy to determine human health values, in order of priority:

1. Calculated human health criteria using EPA's Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) ( U. S. EPA, 1998/ 1999e) oral reference doses ( RfDs) or oral cancer potency slope factors ( SFs) in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid bioconcentration factor ( BCF) values derived from Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents ( U. S. EPA, 1980). Three percent is the mean lipid content of fish tissue reported in the study from which the average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day ( g/ day) was derived ( U. S. EPA, 1991).

2. Calculated human health values using current IRIS RfDs or SFs and representative unadjusted BCF values for common North American species of fish or invertebrates or estimated BCF values.

3. Calculated human health values using RfDs or SFs from EPA's Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables ( HEAST) ( U. S. EPA, 1997) or EPA's Region III Risk Based Concentration ( RBC) Table ( U. S. EPA, 1998) used in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived from Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents.

4. Calculated human health criteria using current RfDs or SFs from HEAST or EPA's Region III RBC table and representative BCF values for common North American species of fish or invertebrates or estimated BCF values. Page 3 of 8 HHOO ( µ g/ L)

RfD ( mg/ kg/ d) x 70 kg x 1,000 µ g/ mg 0.0065 kg/ d x BCF ( L/ kg)

HHOO ( µ g/ L)

70 kg x Risk Level ( dimensionless) x 1,000 µ g/ mg SF ( mg/ kg/ d)

1 x 0.0065 kg/ d x BCF ( L/ kg)

HHWO ( µ g/ L)

RfD ( mg/ kg/ d) x 70 kg x 1,000 µ g/ mg 2 L/ d  [ 0.0065 kg/ d x BCF ( L/ kg)]

HHWO ( µ g/ L)

70 kg x Risk Level ( dimensionless) x 1,000 µ g/ mg SF ( mg/ kg/ d)

1 x [ 2 L/ d  [ 0.0065 kg/ d x BCF ( L/ kg)]] 5. Criteria from the Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents.

6. Calculated human health values using RfDs or SFs from data sources other than IRIS, HEAST, or the Region III RBC Table.

This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water Quality based Toxics Control ( U. S. EPA, 1991), which recommends that the most current risk information from IRIS be used when estimating human health risks. This document also recommends using an average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams, an average daily water intake of 2 liters, and an average adult body weight of 70 kilograms. In cases where a chemical has both an RfD and SF from sources at the same level of the hierarchy, the human health values are calculated using the SF, which always results in the more stringent value of the two. When a chemical has both an RfD and SF but these values are from different levels of the hierarchy, the value that is from the source higher on the hierarchy is used. The carcinogenic risk level is 10 5 for TWFs, whereas a risk level of 10 6 is used for PWFs. The following equations are used to calculate human health values:

For Toxicity Protection ( ingestion of organisms only)

For Carcinogenicity Protection ( ingestion of organisms only)

For Toxicity Protection ( ingestion of water and organisms)

For Carcinogenicity Protection ( ingestion of water and organisms)

Revisions for the Human Health TWF Methodology Page 4 of 8 The following revisions need to be made to the TWF methodology. The TWF methodology needs to reflect the changes that were made in the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ( EPA 822 B 00 004) as well as those proposed in the Draft Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment ( External Review Draft, February 2003). Specifically, but not limited to:

° Average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams needs to reflect updated information in Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ( EPA 822 B 00 004). EPA recommends a default fish intake rater of 17.5 grams/ day to adequately protect the general population of fish consumers.

° Update BCFs to BAFs. In order to prevent harmful exposures to waterborne chemicals through the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish, national 304( a) criteria for the protection of human health must address the process of bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. For deriving national 304( a) criteria to protect human health, EPA accounts for potential bioaccumulation of chemicals in fish and shellfish through the use of national bioaccumulation factors ( BAFs). A national BAF is a ratio ( in L/ kg) that relates the concentration of a chemical in water to its expected concentration in commonly consumed aquatic organisms in a specified trophic level. For more information on how to derive BAFs, see Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ( EPA 822 B 00 004).

° Update terminology and methodology for carcinogens. See Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ( EPA 822 B 00 004) and Draft Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment ( EPA 2003).

° Update Rfds/ cancer potency information as new data becomes available in IRIS or HEAST.

Chronic Aquatic Life Values When selecting chronic aquatic toxicity values, EPA uses national water quality criteria, when available. When these criteria are not available, other values representative of the chemical's chronic toxicity are used. EPA uses the following hierarchy to select the appropriate chronic values:

1. National chronic freshwater quality criteria 2. Lowest reported measured maximum allowable toxicant concentration ( MATC), lowest observed effect concentration ( LOEC), or no observed effect concentration ( NOEC)

3. Lowest reported measured chronic growth or reproductive toxicity test concentration Page 5 of 8 4. Estimated chronic toxicity concentration from a measured acute: chronic ratio for a less sensitive species, quantitative structure activity relationship ( QSAR) model, or default acute: chronic ratio of 10: 1 National Chronic Freshwater Quality Criteria National chronic water quality criteria are the first choice for values because they represent a consideration of a chemical's toxicity to a diverse genera of aquatic life and have been published by EPA. The derivation of EPA criteria values is described in EPA Office of Water's criteria documents for specific pollutants ( U. S. EPA, 1980). " Criteria" is defined as the 4 day average concentration of toxicants at which a diverse genera of aquatic organisms and their uses should not be unacceptably affected, provided that these levels are not exceeded more than once every 3 years.

Lowest Reported MATC, LOEC, or NOEC Concentration The term " chronic" involves a stimulus that continues for a long time, often for periods of several weeks to years, depending on the organism's reproductive life cycle. Chronic aquatic tests measure the effects of long term exposure to a chemical. The biological response to the exposure is typically of relatively slow progress and long continuance. Citing rapid developments in test methodology, EPA recommends several 7 day, short term period exposure duration test methods ( U. S. EPA, 1989a). Test endpoints include such variables as survival percentage, hatchability, and normal larvae weight and length. Chronic tests of longer exposure duration measure endpoints such as growth and reproduction.

EPA uses chronic aquatic test data to identify three concentration levels of potential significance: the no observed effect concentration ( NOEC), the lowest observed effect concentration ( LOEC), and the maximum allowable toxicant concentration ( MATC). The NOEC is the highest toxicant concentration to which test organisms have been exposed with results of no observed adverse effect. The NOEC may be statistically determined using hypothesis testing, or it may be derived from the inhibition concentration, which is an estimate of the toxicant concentration that will result in a given percentage reduction in biological measurement of the test organisms. The LOEC is the lowest toxicant concentration at which a chronic effect on a test organism has been observed. The MATC is the geometric mean of the NOEC and LOEC and is meant to represent the threshold level where chronic effects will begin to occur. MATC values are selected first, followed by LOEC values, and lastly by NOEC values.

Lowest Chronic or Reproductive Test Concentration For chemicals that do not have chronic aquatic life criteria, MATCs, LOECs, or NOECs, EPA obtains chronic effect concentrations from readily available sources of chronic toxicity test data. The preferred information source is the EPA's Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk Page 6 of 8 ( ASTER) ( U. S. EPA, 1998/ 1999a), which combines the Aquatic Toxicity Information Retrieval database ( AQUIRE) ( U. S. EPA, 1998/ 1999b), the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory Duluth ( ERL Duluth) fathead minnow database ( U. S. EPA, 1998/ 1999c), and tables of toxicity test results from water quality criteria documents. The ASTER system differentiates between AQUIRE test data that are likely to be of good quality and AQUIRE test data that are of unknown quality, according to the following criteria:

° Test pH within range of 6.5  8.5 ° Review code 1 ( methodology section cites published or well documented procedures; satisfactory control; measured concentration; temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and hardness are reported) or 2 ( one or more of the following may occur: control mortality not reported; no solvent control when a solvent is used in the test; unmeasured concentration; water chemistry variables not reported or incomplete)

° No use of formulations or carriers ° Measured values and flow through exposure only for tests on fish ( no static exposure)

° Measured values only for invertebrates or plants ( exposure may be static or flow through)

Test results from the ERL Duluth fathead minnow database are assumed to be of good quality. However, test results reported in water quality criteria documents are assumed to be of unknown quality.

EPA selects the lowest reported concentration   from a chronic growth or reproductive test on a North American native fish or invertebrate or from a biologically significant ( i. e., chlorophyll production) EC 50 test for an algal species   from the pool of test data likely to be of good quality or, alternatively, from the pool of data of unknown quality. If appropriate test data are not available from ASTER, other primary or secondary information sources are consulted.

Estimated Chronic Toxicity Concentration EPA uses estimated chronic toxicity concentrations when measured values are unavailable. The first option for estimating a chronic toxicity concentration is to use acute toxicity concentrations and a measured acute: chronic ratio ( ACR). ACRs are based on measured acute and chronic pollutant concentration values for the same species. The calculated ACR is applied to the acute aquatic toxicity criterion or toxic effect level selected for the pollutant of concern. EPA uses this method in instances where an ACR is available for a species that has a Page 7 of 8 measured chronic toxicity concentration that is greater than the acute criterion or the representative acute toxic effect level for the selected pollutant. These instances arise when chronic toxicity test data are available for less sensitive species only. The acute aquatic toxic effect level ( used if national acute water quality criteria are not available) is typically the lowest reported acute aquatic bioassay test concentration ( 24 to 96 hour median lethal concentration ( LC 50)) for a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate. As with chronic toxic effect levels, a test result of good quality is selected ahead of a test result of unknown quality.

The second option for estimating a chronic toxicity test concentration is to use ERLDuluth's QSAR model ( U. S. EPA, 1998/ 1999d). QSAR derives statistically based relationships between physical chemical properties and biological activity. The QSAR model uses measured toxicity test results for compounds with similar chemical structures and properties to estimate MATC values for compounds whose chemical structure and properties are known or may be estimated.

The final option for estimating a chronic toxicity concentration is to apply an assumed ACR of 10: 1 to the acute aquatic toxic effect concentration. The ACR of 10: 1 is based on a recommendation in EPA Office of Water's Technical Support Document for Water Quality based Toxics Control ( U. S. EPA, 1991) for estimating chronic toxicity when no data are available. The recommendation assumes that the chronic toxicity value is 10 times lower than the acute value.

Revisions for the Aquatic Life TWF Methodology EPA's Office of Science and Technology is currently forming an Aquatic Life Guidelines Revisions Workgroup of Agency scientist to identify, review, evaluate, and revise the existing Guidelines for Deriving Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life ( 1985). The revisions identified by this workgroup should be incorporated in the TWF methodology for aquatic life.

List of TWFs that may be reviewed, developed and/ or updated prior to final plan:

( 1) Nitric acid ( 7697372) ranks 5th among all TRI compounds for TRI hazard and 9th among all TRI compounds for TRI pounds. ( These rankings are based on RSEI model output for water discharges.)

( 2) Hydrogen fluoride ( 7664393) ranks 18th for TRI hazard and 35th for TRI pounds.

( 3) Nitrate compounds ( NA) ranks 19th for TRI hazard and 1st for TRI pounds.

( 4) Mercury compounds ( NA) ranks 59th for TRI hazard and 174th for TRI pounds. ( Per the 2/ 24/ 03 memorandum from Susan Keane, ABT to Lynn Zipf, EPA, methylmercury rather than mercury may be the most appropriate representative compound. Although an EAD TWF is available for mercury, a TWF is not available for methylmercury.) Page 8 of 8 ( 5) Chlorine dioxide ( 10049044) ranks 74th for TRI hazard and 47th for TRI pounds.

( 6) 1,3 Phenylenediamine ( 108452) ranks 81st for TRI hazard and 93rd for TRI pounds.

( 7) Mercury ( 7439976) ranks 96th for TRI hazard and 223rd for TRI pounds. ( See also ( 4), mercury compounds above.)

( 8) Review sodium nitrite TWF.

( 9) Review benzo( a) pyrene TWF.

( 10) PACs.

( 11) Review TWF for aniline.

( 12) Develop TWF for vanadium.

For those chemicals that have RfDs or cancer potency information available in IRIS or HEAST but do not have TWFs, EPA may develop TWFs as feasible.

References:

Draft Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment ( External Review Draft, February 2003). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 2003.

Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, October 2003.