[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22981-22985]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08174]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94698; File No. SR-C2-2022-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
on a Permanent Basis the Pilot Program for Market-Wide Circuit
Breakers, Currently Codified in Rule 5.20.01

April 12, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 11, 2022, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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\ 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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') is filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a proposal
to adopt on a permanent basis the pilot program for Market-Wide Circuit
Breakers, currently codified in Rule 5.20.01. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 5.20.01 to make
permanent the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') pilot program. The

proposal is substantively identical to New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'') Rule 7.12 and NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') Rule
7.12E.
The Pilot Rules
    The MWCB rules, including the Exchange's Rule 5.20.01, provide an
important, automatic mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and
investor confidence during periods of significant stress when cash
equities securities experience extreme market-wide declines. The MWCB
rules are designed to slow the effects of extreme price declines
through coordinated trading halts across both cash equity and equity
options securities markets.
    The cash equities rules governing MWCBs were first adopted in 1988
and, in 2012, all U.S. cash equity exchanges and FINRA amended their
cash equities uniform rules on a pilot basis (the ``Pilot Rules,''
i.e., Rule 5.20.01).\5\ The Pilot Rules currently provide for trading
halts in all cash equity securities during a severe market decline as
measured by a single-day decline in the S&P 500 Index (``SPX'').\6\
Under the Pilot Rules, a market-wide trading halt will be triggered if
SPX declines in price by specified percentages from the prior day's
closing price of that index. The triggers are set at three circuit
breaker thresholds: 7% (Level 1), 13% (Level 2), and 20% (Level 3). A
market decline that triggers a Level 1 or Level 2 halt after 9:30 a.m.
and before 3:25 p.m. would halt market-wide trading for 15 minutes,
while a similar market decline at or after 3:25 p.m. would not halt
market-wide trading. (Level 1 and Level 2 halts may occur only once a
day.) A market decline that triggers a Level 3 halt at any time during
the trading day would halt market-wide trading for the remainder of the
trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129) (``Pilot
Rules Approval Order'').
    \6\ The rules of the equity options exchanges similarly provide
for a halt in trading if the cash equity exchanges invoke a MWCB
Halt. See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.65-O(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the Pilot Rules, the term of which was to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the ``LULD
Plan''),\7\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD
Plan.\8\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to the
LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\9\ In light of the proposal to make the LULD Plan permanent, the
Exchange amended Rule 5.20.01 to untie the pilot's effectiveness from
that of the LULD Plan and to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the
close of business on October 18, 2019.\10\ The Exchange then filed to
extend the pilot to the close of business on October 18, 2020,\11\
October 18, 2021,\12\ March 18, 2022,\13\ and April 18, 2022.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012). The LULD Plan provides a
mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility in individual
securities.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-C2-2011-024) (Approval Order);
and 68769 (January 31, 2013), 78 FR 8213 (February 5, 2013) (SR-C2-
2013-006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change to Delay the Operative Date of a Rule Change to
Exchange Rule 6.32.03).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85624 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16130 (April 17, 2019) (SR-C2-2019-008) (proposal to
extend the pilot for certain options pilots, including Rule 5.20.01,
prior Rule 6.32.03).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87342 (October 18,
2019), 84 FR 57102 (October 24, 2019) (SR-C2-2019-022).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90158 (October 13,
2020), 85 FR 66388 (October 19, 2020) (SR-C2-2020-015).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58342 (October 18,
2021), 86 FR 58706 (October 22, 2021) (SR-C2-2021-015).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94455 (March 17,
2022), 87 FR 16504 (March 23, 2022) (SR-C2-2022-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MWCB Working Group Study
    Beginning in February 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the markets experienced increased volatility, culminating in four MWCB
Level 1 halts on March 9, 12, 16, and 18, 2020. In each instance,
pursuant to the Pilot Rules, the markets halted as intended upon a 7%
drop in SPX and did not start the process to resume trading until the
prescribed 15-minute halt period ended.
    On September 17, 2020, the Director of the Commission's Division of
Trading and Markets asked the SROs to conduct a study of the design and
operation of the Pilot Rules and the LULD Plan during the period of
volatility in March 2020. In response to the request, the SROs created
a MWCB ``Working Group'' composed of SRO representatives and industry
advisers that included members of the advisory committees to both the
LULD Plan and the NMS Plans governing the collection, consolidation,
and dissemination of last-sale transaction reports and quotations in
NMS Stocks. The Working Group met regularly from September 2020 through
March 2021 to consider the Commission's request, review data, and
compile its study.
    On March 31, 2021, the MWCB Working Group submitted its study (the
``Study'') to the Commission.\15\ The Study included an evaluation of
the operation of the Pilot Rules during the March 2020 events and an
evaluation of the design of the current MWCB system. In the Study, the
Working Group concluded: (1) The MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot
Rules worked as intended during the March 2020 events; (2) the MWCB
halts triggered in March 2020 appear to have had the intended effect of
calming volatility in the market, without causing harm; (3) the design
of the MWCB mechanism with respect to reference value (SPX), trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%), and halt times (15 minutes) is appropriate; (4)
the change implemented in Amendment 10 to the LULD Plan did not likely
have any negative impact on MWCB functionality; and (5) no changes
should be made to the mechanism to prevent the market from halting
shortly after the opening of regular trading hours at 9:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Report of the Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'')
Working Group Regarding the March 2020 MWCB Events, submitted March
31, 2021 (the ``Study''), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Report_of_the_Market-Wide_Circuit_Breaker_Working_Group.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of those conclusions, the MWCB Working Group also made
several recommendations, including that (1) the Pilot Rules should be
made permanent without any changes, and (2) SROs should adopt a rule
requiring all designated Regulation SCI firms to participate in at
least one Level 1/Level 2 MWCB test each year and to verify their
participation via attestation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Make the Pilot Rules Permanent
    On July 16, 2021, NYSE proposed a rule change to make the Pilot
Rules permanent, consistent with the Working Group's
recommendations.\17\ On March 16, 2022, the Commission approved NYSE's
proposal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92428 (July 16,
2021), 86 FR 38776 (July 22, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-40).
    \18\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94441 (March 16,
2022), 87 FR 16286 (March 22, 2022) (SR-NYSE-2021-40) (Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1 To Adopt on a Permanent Basis the Pilot Program
for Market-Wide Circuit Breakers in Rule 7.12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange now proposes that the Pilot

Rules (i.e., paragraphs (a)-(d) of Rule 5.20.01) be made permanent. To
accomplish this, the Exchange proposes to remove certain text within
Rule 5.20.01, which currently provides that the rule is in effect
during a pilot period that expires at the close of business on April
18, 2022. The Exchange does not propose any changes to paragraphs (a)-
(d) of the Rule.
    Consistent with the Commission's approval of NYSE's proposal, the
Exchange proposes to add new paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to Rule
5.20.01 as follows:
    (e) Market-Wide Circuit Breaker (``MWCB'') Testing.
    (1) The Exchange will participate in all industry-wide tests of the
MWCB mechanism. Trading Permit Holders designated pursuant to paragraph
(b) of Rule 5.24 to participate in Disaster Recovery are required to
participate in at least one industry-wide MWCB test each year and to
verify their participation in that test by attesting that they are able
to or have attempted to:
    (A) Receive and process MWCB halt messages from the securities
information processors (``SIPs'');
    (B) receive and process resume messages from the SIPs following a
MWCB halt;
    (C) receive and process market data from the SIPs relevant to MWCB
halts; and
    (D) send orders following a Level 1 or Level 2 MWCB halt in a
manner consistent with their usual trading behavior.
    (2) To the extent that an Member participating in a MWCB test is
unable to receive and process any of the messages identified in
paragraph (e)(1)(A)-(D) of this Rule, its attestation should notify the
Exchange which messages it was unable to process and, if known, why.
    (3) Trading Permit Holders not designated pursuant to standards
established in paragraph (b) of Rule 5.24 are permitted to participate
in any MWCB test.
    (f) In the event that a halt is triggered under this Rule following
a Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 Market Decline, the Exchange, together
with other SROs and industry representatives (the ``MWCB Working
Group''), will review such event. The MWCB Working Group will prepare a
report that documents its analysis and recommendations and will provide
that report to the Commission within 6 months of the event.
    (g) In the event that there is (1) a Market Decline of more than
5%, or (2) an SRO implements a rule that changes its reopening process
following a MWCB Halt, the Exchange, together with the MWCB Working
Group, will review such event and consider whether any modifications
should be made to this Rule. If the MWCB Working Group recommends that
a modification should be made to this Rule, the MWCB Working Group will
prepare a report that documents its analysis and recommendations and
provide that report to the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to make the Pilot Rules
permanent is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\19\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Rules set out in Rule 5.20.01 are an important, automatic
mechanism that is invoked to promote stability and investor confidence
during periods of significant market stress when securities markets
experience broad-based declines. The four MWCB halts that occurred in
March 2020 provided the Exchange, the other SROs, and market
participants with real-world experience as to how the Pilot Rules
actually function in practice. Based on the Working Group's Study and
the Exchange's own analysis of those events, the Exchange believes that
making the Pilot Rules permanent would benefit market participants,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules
permanent would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the Pilot Rules worked as
intended during the March 2020 events. As detailed above, the markets
were in communication before, during, and after each of the MWCB Halts
that occurred in March 2020. All 9,000+ equity symbols were
successfully halted in a timely manner when SPX declined 7% from the
previous day's closing value, as designed. The Exchange believes that
market participants would benefit from having the Pilot Rules made
permanent because such market participants are familiar with the design
and operation of the MWCB mechanism set out in the Pilot Rules, and
know from experience that it has functioned as intended on multiple
occasions under real-life stress conditions. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would enhance investor
confidence in the ability of the markets to successfully halt as
intended when under extreme stress.
    The Exchange further believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent
would benefit market participants, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest, because the halts that were
triggered pursuant to the Pilot Rules in March 2020 appear to have had
the intended effect of calming volatility in the market without causing
harm. As detailed above, after studying a variety of metrics concerning
opening and reopening auctions, quote volatility, and other factors,
the Exchange concluded that there was no significant difference in the
percentage of securities that opened on a trade versus on a quote for
the four days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts, versus the other periods
studied. In addition, while the post-MWCB Halt reopening auctions were
smaller than typical opening auctions, the size of those post-MWCB Halt
reopening auctions plus the earlier initial opening auctions in those
symbols was on average equal to opening auctions in January 2020. The
Exchange believes this indicates that the MWCB Halts on the four March
2020 days did not cause liquidity to evaporate. Finally, the Exchange
observes that while quote volatility was generally higher on the four
days in March 2020 with MWCB Halts as compared to the other periods
studied, quote volatility stabilized following the MWCB Halts at levels
similar to the January 2020 levels, and LULD Trading Pauses worked as
designed to address any additional volatility later in the day. From
this evidence, the Exchange concludes that the Pilot Rules actually
calmed volatility on the four MWCB Halt days in March 2020, without
causing liquidity to evaporate or otherwise harming the market. As
such, the Exchange believes that making the Pilot Rules permanent would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market

and a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest.
    The Exchange believes that that making the Pilot Rules permanent
without any changes would benefit market participants, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest, because the current design
of the MWCB mechanism as set out in the Pilot Rules remains
appropriate. As detailed above, the Exchange considered whether SPX
should be replaced as the reference value, whether the current trigger
levels (7%/13%/20%) and halt times (15 minutes for Level 1 and 2 halts)
should be modified, and whether changes should be made to prevent the
market from halting shortly after the opening of regular trading hours
at 9:30 a.m., and concluded that the MWCB mechanism set out in the
Pilot Rules remains appropriate, for the reasons cited above. The
Exchange believes that public confidence in the MWCB mechanism would be
enhanced by the Pilot Rules being made permanent without any changes,
given investors' familiarity with the Pilot Rules and their successful
functioning in March 2020.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (e) regarding MWCB
testing 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. The Working Group recommended that
all cash equities exchanges adopt a rule requiring all designated
Regulation SCI firms to participate in MWCB testing and to attest to
their participation. The Exchange believes that these requirements
would promote the stability of the markets and enhance investor
confidence in the MWCB mechanism and the protections that it provides
to the markets and to investors. The Exchange further believes that
requiring firms participating in a MWCB test to identify any inability
to process messages pertaining to such MWCB test would contribute to a
fair and orderly market by flagging potential issues that should be
corrected. The Exchange would preserve such attestations pursuant to
its obligations to retain books and records of the Exchange.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (f) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review any halt
triggered under Rule 5.20.01 and prepare a report of its analysis and
recommendations would permit the Exchange, along with other market
participants and the Commission, to evaluate such event and determine
whether any modifications should be made to Rule 5.20.01 in the public
interest. Preparation of such a report within 6 months of the event
would permit the Exchange, along with the MWCB Working Group,
sufficient time to analyze such halt and prepare their recommendations.
    The Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (g) would benefit
market participants, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Having the MWCB Working Group review instances of a
Market Decline of more than 5% or an SRO implementing a rule that
changes its reopening process following a MWCB Halt would allow the
MWCB Working Group to identify situations where it recommends that Rule
5.20.01 be modified in the public interest. In such situations where
the MWCB Working Group recommends that a modification should be made to
Rule 5.20.01, the MWCB Working Group would prepare a report that
documents its analysis and recommendations and provide that report to
the Commission, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system while
protecting investors and the public interest.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change is consistent with the Act.

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. The proposed change is not
intended to address competition, but rather, makes permanent the
current MWCB Pilot Rules for the protection of the markets. The
Exchange believes that making the current MWCB Pilot Rules permanent
would have no discernable burden on competition at all, since the Pilot
Rules have already been in effect since 2012 and would be made
permanent without any changes. Moreover, because the MWCB mechanism
contained in the Pilot Rules requires all exchanges and all market
participants to cease trading at the same time, making the Pilot Rules
permanent would not provide a competitive advantage to any exchange or
any class of market participants.
    Further, the Exchange understands that the other SROs will submit
substantively identical proposals to the Commission. Thus, the proposed
rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs without
implicating any competitive issues.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \23\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \24\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\25\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange asked
that the Commission waive the 30 day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the
30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately provide
the protections included in this proposal in the event of a MWCB halt,
which is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-C2-2022-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2022-010. 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 website (https://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 website 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions.
    You should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2022-010
and should be submitted on or before May 9, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08174 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 1269]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0001]

Notice and Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments
about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval to renew an information collection. Before a Federal
agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under
procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before
seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on
proposed collections of information, including extensions and
reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-
2019-0001] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremiah Kinsman, Office of Emergency
Medical Services (NPD-400), Room W44-321, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kinsman's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Emergency Medical Services
Information System (NEMSIS)--State Submission to National EMS Database
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0717.
    Type of Request: Collection of Emergency Medical Services Data.
    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established by Congress to
save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to motor
vehicle crashes through education, research, safety standards, and
enforcement activity. Within NHTSA, the Office of Emergency Medical
Services is responsible for advancing a national vision for emergency
medical services (EMS) through the development and implementation of
targeted projects to benefit patient care, EMS practitioner safety and
support of EMS research. The NHTSA Office of EMS also coordinates with
the Federal and state highway safety community to ensure that EMS is
equipped and prepared to carry out its mission of preventing death and
reducing serious injuries after traffic crashes. NHTSA is proposing to
continue voluntary collection of limited EMS information from U.S.
States and Territories. There are no Federal mandates or requirements
for submission of EMS information from U.S. States and Territories. The
information is transmitted from local EMS agencies to State EMS data
systems, and then onto NHTSA's National EMS Database via an automated
``machine-to-machine'' process that uses Web Services. The information
is transmitted from the point-of-care to states and NHTSA's National
EMS Database in near real-time. The information collected by the
National EMS Database is a de-identified subset of the data already
being collected for use by state and territorial EMS Offices. The
National EMS Database collects information that describes EMS agencies,
the activation and response of individual EMS units to an emergency,
emergency care provided on scene and during transport to a health
facility, transport decision, disposition of the patient and incident,
and EMS system times such as response time. Personal identifiable
information (PII) such as the patient's name, patient's home address,
patient's date of birth, patient's social security number, and
patient's medical record number are not collected by the National EMS
Database. The information collected by the National EMS Database is
available to the public. The National EMS Database provides NHTSA's
Office of EMS with information necessary to inform national EMS and
first responder programs, projects, and initiatives; and determine the
impact EMS has on highway safety and post-crash care. The information
is also used by EMS and public health researchers to develop evidence
for best practices in EMS operations and prehospital clinical care, and
by local EMS agencies and state offices of EMS for performance
improvement and benchmarking.
    Affected Public: State Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Number of Responses: N/A.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1008.00.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $49,624.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506 (c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2019.
Jon Krohmer,
Acting Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2019-00623 Filed 1-31-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Reader’s Guide to Prometon Docket

EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1078

Publication Date: November 7, 2007

	EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to
the Prometon Docket.  The Agency is providing the “Reader’s Guide”
to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various items
contained in the prometon docket.

Docket Item 1. 	Federal Register Notice: Prometon Risk Assessments;
Notice of Availability (Phase 3 of 4-Phase Process);

This document formally and publicly announces the availability of
prometon risk assessments for review on the internet or at the EPA’s
Office of Pesticides Programs’ Public Docket and solicits comments and
suggestions on the risk assessments and how to mitigate or address
potential risks of concern.

Docket Item 2. 	Reader’s Guide to the Prometon Docket #
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1048

This document is designed to annotate all the documents in the Prometon
Docket.

Docket Item 3.	Error Correction: Drinking Water Assessment and
Ecological Risk Assessment for Prometon RED.  DP: D335303, D335305.
October 24, 2007.  (J. Hetrick and P. Doelling Brown, EFED)

This document describes the Agency’s response to comments on the
prometon drinking water assessment and ecological risk assessment and
includes error-only revisions based on registrant’s comments.

Docket Item 4.	Ecological Risk Assessment for Re-registration of
Prometon (PC080804).  October 24, 2007.  DP: D335305.  (P. Doelling
Brown, EFED)

This document considers potential ecological risks resulting from the
use of prometon-containing products and includes error-only revisions
based on registrant’s comments.

Docket Item 5.	Drinking Water Assessment for Prometon.  DP: D335303.
October 24, 2007.  (J. Hetrick, EFED)

This document is the Agency’s assessment estimating potential prometon
residues in drinking water and includes error-only revisions based on
registrant’s comments.

Docket Item 6.	Prometon:  HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision Document (RED).  Revised After Phase 1 Error Only Corrections.
PC Code: 080804, Case #2545.  DP: D335307.  October 25, 2007.  (W.
Donovan, et al., HED)

This document is the Agency’s assessment estimating potential human
health exposures and risk from uses of prometon-containing products and
includes error-only revisions based on registrant’s comments.

Docket Item 7.	Prometon:  Occupational and Residential Exposure
Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (Non-Food).  DP:
D335308.  October 25, 2007.  (W. Britton, HED)

This document is the Agency’s assessment estimating potential
occupational and residential exposures and risk from uses of
prometon-containing products and includes error-only revisions based on
registrant’s comments.

Docket Item 8.	Registrant’s Error Correction Comments. October 19,
2007.  Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc.

This document is the compilation of error correction comments on the
risk assessments and its supporting documents, submitted to the Agency
by Makhteshim Agan of North America.

Ѝ഍䴉偃ⵐ⁰敒摡牥玒䜠極敤


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23114-23115]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1127; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-035-AD;
Amendment 39-17423; AD 2013-08-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell
Model 430 helicopters, which requires replacing certain components of
the air data system. This AD was prompted by the discovery of incorrect
indicated airspeed when the helicopter was tested to the cold
temperature limits (-40 degrees centigrade) required for Category A
operations. The actions of this AD are intended to correct the
published Vne and to correct the indicated airspeed.

DATES: This AD is effective May 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (450)
433-0272, or http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark F. Wiley, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 22, 2012, at 77 FR 64439, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Bell Model 430
helicopters. That NPRM proposed to require replacing certain components
of the air data system. The proposed requirements were intended to
correct the published Vne and to correct the indicated airspeed.
    The Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2005-30, dated
August 3, 2005, to correct an unsafe condition for the Bell Model 430
helicopters. Discrepancies in the processing and display of air data
were revealed when testing at low temperatures to minus 40 degrees
Centigrade (-40[deg]C). The TCCA advises that modification to the
instrumentation is required to reflect the Vne airspeed values tested
at temperatures to -40[deg]C. The TCCA states ``This modification
affects the software in the Vne Overspeed Warning computer (required
for Category A operations) and in the AFCS [Automatic Flight Control
System] Air Data Computer.'' TCAA issued AD CF-2005-30 to require the
procedures in Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 430-05-35, dated
June 21, 2005, for replacing the affected instruments. Bell also issued
ASB No. 430-01-22, dated April 30, 2001 (ASB 430-01-22), which provided
a temporary Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement and placards with
information on airspeed corrections. TCCA did not issue an AD to
mandate the provisions of ASB 430-01-22.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (77 FR 64439,
October 22, 2012).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the TCCA and are approved
for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with Canada, TCCA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the Canadian AD.
    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by TCCA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the TCCA AD

    We do not use the compliance date of July 31, 2007.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 52 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD:
     $680 to replace the overspeed warning computer, pilot and
copilot airspeed indicators, Vne converter, and AFCS air data computer
adapter module for each helicopter, assuming 8 work hours for each
helicopter at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour, and
     $46,074 per helicopter for the required parts.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD
on U.S. operators to be $2,431,208 for the fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-08-06 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Amendment 39-17423;
Docket No. FAA-2012-1127; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-035-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model 430 helicopters: serial number (S/N)
49001 through 49103, with Overspeed Warning Kit, part number (P/N)
430-706-004-101 or P/N 430-706-004-103, installed; S/N 49001 through
49100, with Single Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) with
Flight Director Kit, P/N 430-705-009-103, -105, -109, -111, -115, -
117, or P/N 430-705-011-109, -111, -121, or -123, installed; and S/N
49001 through 49100, with Dual AFCS with Flight Director Kit, P/N
430-705-011-103, -105, -115, -117, -125, -127, -129, -133, -135, or
-137, installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as inability of the
helicopters, based on testing, to operate at the published
Vne indicated airspeeds within the cold temperature
limits (-40 degrees centigrade) required for Category A operations.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 23, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 1 year:
    (1) For helicopters with an Overspeed Warning System, replace
the Overspeed Warning Computer, P/N 430-375-013-103, with the
Overspeed Warning Computer, P/N 430-375-013-105; the Vne
Converter, P/N ADI-21280-000, with the Vne Converter, P/N
ADI-21280-100; and the pilot and copilot Airspeed Indicator, P/N
222-375-027-117, with the pilot and copilot airspeed Indicator, P/N
222-375-027-119;
    (i) If installed, remove the decal, P/N 430-075-070-103, from
below the pilot and copilot airspeed indicators;
    (ii) Leak test the pilot pitot static system; and
    (iii) Operationally test the overspeed warning system.
    (2) For helicopters with a Single or Dual AFCS with a Flight
Director, replace the AFCS Air Data Computer Adapter Module, P/N
065-05041-0021, with P/N 065-05041-0031;
    (i) If installed, remove the decal, P/N 430-075-070-101, from
above the pilot and copilot electronic attitude direction indicators
airspeed indicators;
    (ii) Leak test the pilot pitot static system;
    (iii) Power-up test the altimeter/vertical speed indicator (ALT/
VSI) and self-test the ALT/VSI of the AFCS air data computer.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, FAA may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Mark F. Wiley, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy
Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817)
222-5110, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
430-05-35, dated June 21, 2005, and ASB No. 430-01-22, dated April
30, 2001, which are not incorporated by reference, contain
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada
Civil Aviation AD No. CF 2005-30, dated August 3, 2005.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System/Component Code: 3417 Air Data Computer.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 8, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-08762 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Estrogen Modality Chemical ER binding Uterotrophic Female Pubertal ( 407) Fish repro screen Steroid Arom AR binding Hershberger Intact male Male Pubertal Estradiol, 17 beta X X X X X Ethinyl estradiol X X X X Nonylphenol X X X X Bisphenol A X X X X X Coumestrol X X Bisphenol B X Butylphenol, 2 sec X Cumylphenol, 4 X Daidzein X Estradiol, 17 alpha X Estrone X Ethyl 4 hydroxybenzoate X Hexestrol, meso X Kaempferol X Morin X Norethynodrel X Phenolphthalin X Tamoxifen citrate X Methoxychlor X X X X X Genistein X X X X Di n butyl phthalate X X X DDT, o, p' X Octylphenol, 4 tert X Diethylstilbestrol X ICI 182,780 X


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5270-5272]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2042]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0731; FRL-9250-6]

 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Wisconsin's revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP), which updates its ambient air quality
standards for fine particulates to conform with current Federal ambient
air quality standards for the same criteria air pollutants. EPA
received comments on its April 8, 2010, proposed rule and withdrew the
accompanying Direct Final Rule. After considering the comments, EPA is
approving the revisions to the Wisconsin SIP as requested by the State
on September 11, 2009.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0731. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?
III. What are the environmental effects of this action?
IV. What comments were received and what is the EPA response?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On September 11, 2009, Wisconsin requested a revision to its SIP to
update the particulate matter ambient air quality standards to conform
with the 2006 revisions to the Federal standards.
    EPA originally established National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter in 1971. Particulate matter was measured
in total suspended particulate (TSP). TSP is particulate up to 100
micrometers in diameter. Then in 1987, EPA changed the indicator to
coarse particulate matter (PM10), which is particulate up to
10 micrometers in diameter. The PM10 standards replaced the
TSP standards. Particulate matter larger than 10 micrometers generally
is not inhaled into the lungs and thus PM10 was found to
adequately protect human health.
    EPA added fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as an
indicator of particulate matter in 1997, but also retained its
PM10 NAAQS. The finer particulate matter measured as
PM2.5 can remain suspended in the air longer and can
penetrate deeply into the lungs more easily than PM10, so a
lower PM2.5 concentration is needed to protect human health.
Then in 2006, EPA revised its particulate matter ambient air quality
standards again. EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard
to its current level of 35 micrograms per

meter cubed ([micro]g/m\3\) and retained the annual PM2.5
standard of 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\. In 2006, EPA also revoked the annual
standard for PM10 because available evidence did not suggest
a link between long term PM10 exposure and health problems.
The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\ remains in
place. Retaining the 24-hour PM10 standard protects against
health problems linked to short-term coarse particle exposure; the
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards protect against long-term
and short-term fine particulate exposure respectively. Having both the
PM2.5 and PM10 24-hour standards protects against
the effects of short-term exposure to elevated levels of fine
particulate and inhalable coarse PM, particulate between 2.5 and 10
[micro]m. There is no difference between the primary standard, which
protects human health, and the secondary standard, which protects
public welfare, for each PM NAAQS.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?

    Wisconsin revised chapters NR 404 and 484 of the Wisconsin
Administration Code to add the definition of PM2.5 and the
PM2.5 ambient air quality standards to its rules, consistent
with current Federal PM2.5 standards. Wisconsin also removed
the annual PM10 standard and retained the 24-hour
PM10 standard. Thus, the Wisconsin PM10 standards
are also consistent with the current Federal PM10 standards.
    The revisions made by Wisconsin are in accordance with the current
Federal PM2.5 and PM10 standards. EPA is
approving the revisions because the State's standards are at least as
stringent as the Federal NAAQS for both PM2.5 and
PM10 and thus will adequately protect human health and
public welfare. Updating the Wisconsin standards adds clarity as an
outdated state standard could cause confusion. Wisconsin's
PM2.5 and PM10 standards are now the same as the
2006 Federal NAAQS.

III. What are the environmental effects of this action?

    This action incorporates into the SIP Wisconsin's revised PM
standards, which are consistent with the Federal PM2.5 and
PM10 ambient air quality standards, including the more
stringent standard for 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The current
Federal standards are effective and enforceable nationwide.
    Particulate matter interferes with lung function when inhaled.
Exposure to particulates can cause heart and lung disease. Particulate
matter also aggravates asthma. Airborne particulate is the main source
of haze that causes a reduction in visibility. Particulate matter is
also deposited on the ground and in the water, changing nutrient and
chemical balances.

IV. What comments were received and what is the EPA response?

    EPA published a direct final rule accompanied by a proposed rule on
April 8, 2010 (75 FR 17865 and 17894). During the comment period EPA
received comments from the Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC) adverse to the
proposed approval. Therefore, EPA withdrew the direct final rule on
June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30710).
    In its May 7, 2010 letter, the WPC opposed approval of the rule on
five grounds. First, WPC asserts, ``EPA's stated basis for approving
WDNR's SIP submittal is not completely accurate.'' WPC makes this claim
because EPA stated that the Wisconsin particulate matter standards now
match the current Federal standards, whereas Wisconsin has retained the
annual secondary TSP, which was revoked at the Federal level in 1987.
EPA responds by noting that Wisconsin's submission only requested that
revisions to the PM2.5 and PM10 standards be
incorporated into its SIP. Wisconsin never requested a revision to the
TSP standard and thus EPA did not consider such a revision. EPA's April
8, 2010 Federal Register notice states in Section I (What is the
background for this action?) that Wisconsin's request ``is to update
the particulate matter ambient air quality standards.'' The particulate
matter standards were revised to match the 2006 Federal standards (75
FR 17865). There is no mention of the TSP standard, which, as stated
earlier, Wisconsin did not submit to EPA for review. EPA has revised
its rule summary to clearly state that the Wisconsin PM2.5
and PM10 standards now match the current Federal
PM2.5 and PM10 standards. This makes it
unmistakable that this approval applies only to the PM2.5
and PM10 standards and not to the TSP standards. This
revision was made only for clarification and thus the basis of the
proposed approval remains valid.
    Second, WPC asserts, ``Wisconsin Statute section 285.21(1)(a)
requires that WDNR repeal Wisconsin's particulate matter standard based
on total suspended particulate as part of its request to adopt the new
PM2.5 standard,'' and, third, that ``Wisconsin Statute
section 285.21(4) also requires that WDNR repeal the Wisconsin TSP
standard as part of its request to adopt the new PM2.5
standard.'' These comments concern a state matter, as the requested SIP
revision does not involve TSP. EPA also notes that the Wisconsin
Natural Resources Board passed a resolution on May 25, 1989, that found
it was necessary for Wisconsin to retain the secondary 24-hour TSP
standard to protect public health and welfare in Wisconsin. Therefore,
the retention of the 24-hour TSP standard is irrelevant to this
approval and appears to be allowed under Wisconsin Statute section
285.21 and the May 1989 Wisconsin Natural Resources Board resolution.
    WPC's fourth point is that, ``EPA's approval of the September 11,
2009 SIP revision request would violate the Wisconsin SIP.'' A SIP is a
state's collection of rules and orders designed to attain and maintain
the NAAQS and Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements which are federally
enforceable by EPA. There is no prohibition in the CAA, however,
against a state adopting a standard or limitation into its SIP that is
more stringent than the Federal standard, and EPA may enforce a state's
SIP that goes beyond the Federal standard.
    The final comment was, ``EPA should disapprove WDNR's SIP revision
request because it lacks the necessary regulatory tools to implement
the PM2.5 standard.'' WPC seeks test methods, emission
factors, significant impact levels, and more for fine particulates. WPC
states that it would be difficult for sources to limit PM2.5
emission without such regulatory tools. EPA notes that this approval is
only for PM2.5 and PM10 ambient air quality
standards. An ambient air quality standard does not place restrictions
on emission sources by itself. Wisconsin must adopt emission control
requirements to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, and sources will
be expected to comply with the state rules once promulgated.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Wisconsin SIP. Wisconsin revised
chapters NR 404 and 484 of the Wisconsin Administration Code, to remove
the annual PM10 standard from chapter NR 404, and added the
definition of PM2.5 and the 2006 PM2.5 standards.
Wisconsin incorporated by reference the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) monitoring requirements into chapter NR 484 that correspond to
the chapter NR 404 revisions. Specifically, Wisconsin incorporated 40
CFR part 50 Appendices K, L, and M and 40 CFR Part 53 by reference into
chapter NR 484.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 29, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(121) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (121) On September 11, 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a State Implementation Plan revision request. The
State's ambient air quality standards were revised by adding fine
particulate matter, PM2.5, standards and revising the coarse
particulate matter, PM10, standards. Wisconsin added annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. It also revoked the annual
PM10 ambient air quality standard while retaining the 24-
hour PM10 standard.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code are incorporated by reference:
    (A) NR 404.02 Definitions. NR 404.02(4e) ``PM2.5'' as
published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, on September 30,
2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 2009.
    (B) NR 404.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. NR 404.04 (8)
``PM10: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARDS.'' and NR 404.04(9)
``PM2.5: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARDS'' as published in
the Wisconsin Administrative Register, on September 30, 2009, No. 645,
effective October 1, 2009.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) NR 484.03 Code of Federal Regulations. NR 484.03(5) in Table 1
as published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, on September 30,
2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 2009.
    (B) NR 484.04 Code of Federal Regulations appendices. NR 484.04
(6), (6g), and (6r) in Table 2, as published in the Wisconsin
Administrative Register, on September 30, 2009, No. 645, effective
October 1, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-2042 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Alan Spackman < alan. spackman@ ia To: Carey Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, ksatt@ Shell. Com dc. org> cc: Jennifer Chan/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, John Fox/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Timothy Connor/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, 12/ 22/ 2003 09: 26 anne. jones@ erg. com, George Denning/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA AM Subject: RE: small entity representatives for EPA panel Please respond to alan. spackman Carey,

Sorry, but I don't have any additional information that would assist you in your SBA activities.

I am aware that Axxis has two inland barge rigs, but whether they have other assets or not, I don't know. I also don't know whether their rigs use seawater for cooling water or not.

Best wishes for the Holidays.

______________________________________ Alan Spackman Director, Offshore Technical & Regulatory Affairs International Association of Drilling Contractors P. O. Box 4287 Houston, TX 77210 USA Phone: + 1 713 292 1945 Fax: + 1 713 292 1946 E mail: alan. spackman@ iadc. org Physical Address: 10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 760 Houston, TX 77042 4141 USA  Original Message From: Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Johnston. Carey@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1: 10 PM To: alan. spackman@ iadc. org; ksatt@ Shell. Com Cc: Chan. Jennifer@ epamail. epa. gov; Fox. John@ epamail. epa. gov; Connor. Timothy@ epamail. epa. gov; anne. jones@ erg. com; Denning. George@ epamail. epa. gov Subject: small entity representatives for EPA panel Dear Alan and Kent:

As I indicated in my previous e mail, we hope IADC and OOC ( and others) will be able to participate in our small business outreach activities, formally called small business advocacy review ( SBAR). SBREFA ( Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA), Pub Law No. 104 121) requires EPA to convene a small business advocacy review panel prior to proposing any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA size thresholds are 500 employees ( of the parent entity) for most sectors, and 5 million annual revenue for exploration & development services and oilfield services ( see http:// www. sba. gov/ regulations/ siccodes/ siccodes. html). Using these definitions we were able to identify the following companies that are or might be a " small business." |+++

| | MODU owner name | Affiliation | Employee Size | Size of Company | |+++

| | Blake Workover & | presumed privately | | presumed small | | Drilling | held | | | |+++

| | BSI Drilling | presumed privately | | presumed small | | | held | | | |+++

| | Drillmar | 64% owned by Blue | 11 | small | | | Dolphin Energy | | | |+++

| | Energy Equipment | presumed privately | | presumed small | | Resources | held | | | |+++

| | Ensearch Exploration | Became sub to Newfield| 488 | small | | | Exploration | | | |+++

| | NR Marine | presumed privately | | presumed small | | | held ( noted to be out | | | | | of business) | | | |+++

|

Additionally, Alan identified the following two companies which may meet SBA's definition of a " small business."

Axxis Drilling 1015 N. Cruse Avenue Broussard, LA 70518 Coastal Drilling Company, L. L. C. 311 Saratoga Blvd Corpus Christi, TX 78417 3506 Please let me know if the two above companies meet the SBA's definition of a " small business." Additionally, please let me know how you would like to ask these companies if they would be interested in participating in the SBREFA panel ( which runs 60 days). Do you want place the call or would you like EPA to call these companies? If you would like to make the call then please let us know which of these companies are interested in participating in the SBREFA panel. Additionally, please send us the contact information of any other companies that are interested in participating in the SBREFA panel if they meet SBA's definition of a " small business." If you would like EPA to make the call then please send me the appropriate company contacts. The SBREFA panel will likely convene next February or March 2004. When SBREFA panel is convened we will have materials & analyses to distribute. This will be another opportunity for EPA to take comment. The SBREFA panel consists of representatives from EPA, SBA, and OMB. Note that only small businesses and their representatives may be selected by the panel to serve as " small entity representatives". However, it is routine for organizations representing a range of business sizes to provide comments. All of this activity occurs before EPA publishes the 316( b) Phase III proposal.

Thank you again for your continued help.

Sincerely,

Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water ph: ( 202) 566 1014 fx: ( 202) 566 1053 johnston. carey@ epa. gov Carey Johnston To: alan. spackman@ iadc. org 08/ 15/ 2003 05: 57 cc: "' Leach, Gary'" < GLeach@ houston. deepwater. com>, PM " Kent Saterlee III ( E mail)" < ksatt@ Shell. Com>, "' Cleaver, Marc A.'" < MCleaver@ houston. deepwater. com>, "' McBride, Mickey'" < MMcBride@ houston. deepwater. com>, John Fox/ DC/ USEPA/ US, Timothy Connor/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jennifer Chan/ DC/ USEPA/ US, Shari Goodwin < shari. goodwin@ tetratech ffx. com>, scockerill@ hatch. com. au Subject: RE: Sea Water Intake Structures( Document link: Carey Johnston)

Dear Alan:

EPA is sharing all the data collected by IADC, OOC, WSPA, LMOGA (& others) regarding cooling water intake structures for offshore O& G facilities with Mr. Cockerill. Mr. Cockerill is an EPA contractor helping EPA better analyze this data. Help that IADC or OOC members can extend to Mr. Cockerill with his analyses will help EPA better understand the issues specific to the O& G extraction industry.

We hope you will be able to participate in our small business outreach activities, formally called small business advocacy review ( SBAR). There will be at least two opportunities to share our analyses & approaches and to receive comments and advice, a November 2003 SBAR outreach meeting and a February April 2004 SBREFA panel ( which runs 60 days). SBREFA ( Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA), Pub Law No. 104 121) requires EPA to convene a small business advocacy review panel prior to proposing any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We would like to invite the participation of IADC and OOC ( and others) in the SBAR process. At the first, preliminary outreach meeting in October 2002, we distributed materials to ( among others) American Petroleum Institute ( Roger Claff and Marc Meteyer) and National Petrochemical & Refiners Association ( Tom Wigglesworth). EPA intends to have a second SBAR outreach meeting/ conference call this November. In the background materials distributed before that meeting, we will discuss oil & gas cooling water intakes, and approaches we are considering ( the level of detail will depend upon how far along we are in our analyses). After that meeting and before convening a SBREFA panel, we may also distribute materials ( to bring industry up to date on our analyses).

When SBREFA panel is convened in February 2004, we will have materials & analyses to distribute, and that is another opportunity for you to comment. The SBREFA panel consists of representatives from EPA, SBA, and OMB. Note that only small business and their representatives may be selected by the panel to serve as " small entity representatives". However, it is routine for organizations representing a range of business sizes to provide comments. All of this activity occurs before EPA publishes the 316( b) Phase III proposal.

Thank you again for your continued help and for cc:' ing me on this message.

Sincerely,

Carey A. Johnston, P. E. U. S. EPA, Office of Water ph: ( 202) 566 1014 fx: ( 202) 566 1053 johnston. carey@ epa. gov


[Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10791-10793]
[DOCID:fr09mr10-44]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819; FRL-9124-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Questionnaire for Steam Electric
Power Generating Effluent Guidelines (New); EPA ICR No. 2368.01, OMB
Control No. 2040-NEW

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 for a new
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 April 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0819, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mailcode
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 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: Ms. Jezebele Alicea-Virella,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
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 October 29, 2009 (74 FR 55837-55839), EPA sought comments
on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received comments from
electric power companies, industry trade associations, and an
environmental group. The topics raised in these comments address both
general matters related to the ICR, such as format and timing, and
suggested revisions to specific questions that request technical
information in various sections of the questionnaire. The comments are
summarized in the supporting statement for this ICR. Any additional
comments on this proposed 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-OW-2009-0819, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water 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 Water 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: Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent
Guidelines (New).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2368.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
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: The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to develop
regulations, called effluent guidelines, to limit the amount of
pollutants that are discharged to surface waters or to sewage treatment
plants. The effluent guidelines for the steam electric power generating
point source category apply to steam electric generating units at
establishments that are primarily engaged in the generation of
electricity for distribution and sale, resulting primarily from a
process using nuclear or fossil-type fuels, such as coal, oil and
natural gas.
    EPA first identified the industry during its 2005 annual review of
discharges from categories with existing effluent guidelines
regulations, when publicly available data indicated that this industry
ranked high in discharges of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
Because of these findings, EPA initiated a more detailed study of the
industry and collected data through site visits, wastewater sampling, a
limited data request, and secondary sources of data. EPA determined
that steam electric power plants are responsible for a significant
amount of the toxic pollutant loadings discharged to surface waters by
point sources. Further information regarding these conclusions can be
found in EPA's study, Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category: Final Detailed Study Report (EPA 821-R-09-008). This ICR will
support the review and revision of the Steam Electric ELGs.
    EPA is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
review and approve the ICR for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent
Guidelines. The ICR will aid in the collection of information from a
wide range of steam electric power generating industry operations to
characterize waste streams, understand the processes that generate the
wastes, gather environmental data, and assess the availability and
affordability of treatment technologies. These data will be used to
perform detailed technical and economic analyses that will support
EPA's rulemaking.
    EPA has identified approximately 1,200 fossil- and nuclear-fueled
steam electric power plants that are potentially within scope of the
data collection objectives of the questionnaire. To reduce burden on
the industry, EPA intends to distribute the questionnaire to a
statistically-sampled subset of these facilities. After addressing
comments provided during the first FRN publication comment period,
which ended on December 28, 2009, EPA estimates that approximately 734
fossil- or nuclear-fueled steam electric plants will be required to
complete Parts A and I of the questionnaire. This is a decrease in the
number of respondents, from 760 to 734. The questionnaire consists of
multiple sections which have been tailored to address specific
processes, specific data needs, or types of power plants. Parts A and I
of the questionnaire will be sent to all questionnaire recipients (734
plants); the remaining sections will be sent to discrete subpopulations
of questionnaire recipients. Overall, EPA estimates a reduction of
11,640 hours in respondent burden as a result of the revisions of the
questionnaire.
    The questionnaire will collect general plant information and
selected technical information about the plant processes and the
electric generating units. The information that will be collected
includes economic data and technical information about flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, ash handling, process equipment
cleaning operations, wastewater treatment, surface impoundment and
landfill operations, and nuclear operations. The questionnaire will
also require certain power plants to collect and analyze

samples of leachate from surface impoundments and landfills containing
coal combustion residues. More details about information requested in
each section of the questionnaire are provided in the ICR supporting
statement.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 197
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.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Steam electric power plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 734.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 48,150 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $3,076,316. This includes an estimated
annual burden cost of $2,670,633 for labor and $405,683 million for
operations and maintenance.
    Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection and thus
represents a one-time increase to the Agency's overall burden.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-4962 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59762]
[DOCID:fr11oc06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-616-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

October 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, Northern Natural Gas
Company (Northern) tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective
date of November 1, 2006:

Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 66C
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 66D

    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed
to each of its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16773 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P