[Federal Register: January 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 5706-5707]
[DOCID:fr30ja09-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59283; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Margin Requirements for Foreign Currency Options

January 23, 2009.
    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 January 15, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. Phlx has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change
effective upon filing with 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).
    \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, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \5\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\6\ proposes to amend Phlx Rule 721, Proper and
Adequate Margin, to add margin requirements for U.S. dollar-settled
foreign currency options (``FCOs'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \7\ FCOs are currently traded on the Exchange under the name
World Currency Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings.

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 add margin
requirements for U.S. dollar-settled FCOs (``FCO margin requirements''
or ``FCO margin'') in Phlx Rule 721(c).
    The FCO margin requirements proposed are substantially similar to
prior Commentary .16 to Phlx Rule 722, which was removed in a recent
filing to simplify Phlx's margin rules.\8\ The FCO margin requirements
are also substantially similar to current ISE Rule 1202(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 58340 (August 11, 2008), 73 FR
48268 (August 18, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2007-33). Pursuant to this filing,
Rule 721 was amended to add subsection (b) requiring Exchange
members to make an election to be bound by either CBOE or NYSE
margin rules, and Phlx Rule 722 was shortened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, under proposed Phlx Rule 721(c), the Exchange will
calculate the margin requirement for customers that assume short FCO
positions by adding a percentage of the current market value of the
underlying foreign currency contract to the option premium price less
an adjustment for the out-of-the-money amount of the option contract.
On a quarterly calendar basis, the Exchange will review five-day price
changes over the preceding three-year period for each underlying
currency and set the add-on percentage at a level which would have
covered those price changes at least 97.5% of the time (the
``confidence level'').
    If the results of subsequent reviews show that the current margin
level provides a confidence level below 97%, the Exchange will increase
the margin requirement for that individual currency up to a 98%
confidence level. If the confidence level is between 97% and 97.5%, the
margin level will remain the same but will be subject to monthly
follow-up reviews until the confidence level exceeds 97.5% for two
consecutive months. If, during the course of the monthly follow-up
reviews, the confidence level drops below 97%, the margin level will be
increased to a 98% level and if it exceeds 97.5% for two consecutive
months, the currency will be taken off monthly reviews and will be put
back on the quarterly review cycle. If the currency exceeds 98.5%, the
margin level will be reduced to a 98% confidence level during the most
recent 3 year period.
    Finally, in order to account for large price movements outside the
established margin level, if the quarterly review shows that the
currency had a price movement, either positive or negative, greater
than two times the margin level during the most recent 3 year period,
the margin requirement will be set at a level to meet a 99% confidence
level (``Extreme Outlier Test'').\9\ These parameters are identical to
prior Commentary .16 to Phlx Rule 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange will inform its members and the public of the
margin levels for each currency option immediately following the
quarterly reviews described in Rule 721(c).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ 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. The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with
these obligations because clarification of the Exchange's FCO margin
rules should benefit investors and traders and be in the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 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.

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

    Because the forgoing 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 if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\14\ Phlx requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The proposed rule change
is substantially similar to an ISE rule relating to margin for foreign
currency options.\15\ The Commission believes that this proposed rule
change does not raise any new, unique or substantive issues from those
raised in the approved ISE filing. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
Phlx to apply FCO margin rules that are similar to those of other
options exchanges.\16\ Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ Exchange Act. Release No. 55575 (April 3, 2007), 72 FR
17963 (April 10, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-59).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has 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 may summarily abrogate 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2009-01 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-2009-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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-2009-01 and
should be submitted on or before February 20, 2009.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1978 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEACH ACT GRANTS (RENEWAL)                                                                                EPA ICR No. 2048.04                            OMB Control No. 2040-0244

                                  August 2011                                                                                Contents 1.	Identification of the Information Collection	1 1(a)	Title of the Information Collection	1 1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract	1 2.	Need for and Use of the Collection	2 2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection	2 2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data	2 3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria	2 3(a)	Nonduplication	2 3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	2 3(c)	Consultations	3 3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	3 3(e)	General Guidelines	3 3(f)	Confidentiality	3 3(g)	Sensitive Questions	3 4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested	3 4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes	3 4(b)	Information Requested	3 5.	The Information Collected-Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management	6 5(a)	Agency Activities	6 5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management	6 5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility	7 5(d)	Collection Schedule	7 6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection	7 6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	7 6(b)	Estimating Respondent Cost	8 6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	12 6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	13 6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables	13 6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	14 6(g)	Burden Statement	15

Tables Table 1. BEACH Act Grant performance criteria summary	4 Table 2. Individual respondent 3-year state burden hours	9 Table 3. Total Agency burden hours per activity over 3 years	13 Table 4. Annualized respondent burden and cost	13 Table 5. Total annualized respondent and Agency burden and costs	14 Table 6. Change in annual state burden for performance criteria tasks	14

Information Collection Request 1.	Identification of the Information Collection 1(a)	Title of the Information Collection  Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants 1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract  The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) in part and authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award BEACH Act Program Development and Implementation Grants to coastal and Great Lakes states, tribes, and territories (collectively referred to as states) for their beach monitoring and notification programs. The grants will assist those states to develop and implement a consistent approach to monitor recreational water quality; assess, manage, and communicate health risks from waterborne microbial contamination; notify the public of pollution occurrences, and post beach advisories and closures to prevent public exposure to microbial pathogens. To qualify for a BEACH Act Grant, a state must submit information to the EPA documenting that its beach monitoring and notification program is consistent with nine performance criteria outlined in the National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Recreation Waters. For EPA to award a BEACH Act Implementation Grant, a state must document that its coastal monitoring and notification program includes or will include the following: A risk-based beach evaluation and classification plan.  A sampling design and monitoring implementation plan.  Monitoring report submission and delegation procedures.  Methods and assessment procedures.  A public notification and risk communication plan.  Measures to notify the EPA and local governments.  Measures to notify the public.  Notification report submission and delegation procedures. Public evaluation of the program. All beach program information will be collected by the EPA's Office of Science and Technology, stored in the Beach Database, and displayed on the EPA's Beaches website for use by the public, state environmental and public health agencies, and the EPA. The third Information Collection Request (ICR) approval period expires in January 2012. This Supporting Statement is for the renewal ICR being submitted to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for re-approval of the Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants information collection. For the fourth ICR approval period after rule promulgation, the EPA estimates that the annual respondent burden for the 37 eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, tribes, and territories will be 88,812 hours and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of $3,943,080, for a total annual cost of $11,463,642. There are no start-up costs. Because the Agency does not incur any additional O&M costs, the total annual respondent and Agency burden and cost estimate is 91,957 hours (respondents and Agency) and $11,800,629 (which includes the respondent and Agency burden costs and the respondent O&M costs of $3,943,080). The EPA requests that OMB review and approve this ICR package proposal for 3 years. 2.	Need for and Use of the Collection 2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection  The BEACH Act (Public Law 106-284) established a grant program to assist states in implementing a uniform monitoring and notification program for their coastal recreational waters. As a condition of receipt of a BEACH Act Grant, states must show evidence of meeting the nine performance criteria and the conditions under the BEACH Act. Therefore, a state applying for a grant must submit information on its programs to its EPA Regional Coordinator to document that its program is consistent with the performance criteria. 2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data  Data will be used by the EPA, state and local environmental and public health agencies, and the public. The EPA will use the information submitted by a state to determine whether the state's program is consistent with the performance criteria and the BEACH Act. State and local environmental and public health agencies will use the data as an indicator of program performance, and the public will use the data as reference to make informed decisions before going to the beach. The information provided by each state will also be used to report the status of beach monitoring and notification programs nationwide. A state must implement measures to notify the EPA of the results of its water quality sampling. Therefore, these data will be used to create and maintain a national database of water quality trends, advisories, and closings. 3.	Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3(a)	Nonduplication The information requested from the states is required for receipt of a BEACH Act Grant and is not available from other sources. The EPA has made every reasonable attempt to ensure that the beach monitoring and notification data and information requested through the BEACH Act Grant Program is not already available through less burdensome mechanisms. 3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB The EPA published the first Federal Register notice for this ICR on XXXX, XXXX (XX FR XXXX). The EPA requested comment from the public; no comments were received. 3(c)	Consultations  The EPA consulted with the public through the first Federal Register notice, published on XX XX, XXXX. 3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection The requirement for a state to submit its monitoring and notification data is a statutory requirement under the BEACH Act. The frequency and format of such submittal is at the Administrator's discretion [see CWA section 406(b)(B)(3)]. Since 2003, the EPA has required states to submit their monitoring and notification data annually. However, to provide more up-to-date information to the public on the state of their beaches, the Agency is encouraging more frequent reporting. The Agency continues to expect state grant performance reports annually. 3(e)	General Guidelines  The BEACH Act Grant Program will be conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act [Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1320.5(d)(2)] and will adhere to OMB's general guidelines for information collections. 3(f)	Confidentiality  Measures to ensure the confidentiality of the collected beach monitoring and notification data are not necessary because the information submitted by the respondents is public information. 3(g)	Sensitive Questions  No information of sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this ICR. 4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested 4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes  Information collected by the EPA under the BEACH Act will be submitted by environmental and public health agencies in coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes. No private industries will be required to submit information, and, therefore, no SIC codes are relevant. 4(b)	Information Requested  The EPA is requiring states to provide information on how a beach monitoring and notification program is consistent with the following nine performance criteria, developed from the BEACH Act and summarized in Table 1.   Table 1. BEACH Act Grant performance criteria summary Category Performance criteria Requirement BEACH Act section Evaluation and Classification                                        1 Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification 406(b)(2)(A)(ii-iv) 406(c)(1) Monitoring                                        2 Sampling Design and Monitoring Implementation Plan 406(c)(3)

                                       3 Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation 406(b)(3)(A), (B) 406(c)(2)

                                       4 Methods and Assessment Procedures 406(c)(4) Public Notification and Prompt Risk Communication                                        5 Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan 406(c)(7)

                                       6 Measures to Notify the EPA and Local Governments 406(c)(5)

                                       7 Measures to Notify the Public 406(c)(6)

                                       8 Notification Report Submission and Delegation 406(b)(3)(A), (B) 406(c)(2) Public Evaluation                                        9 Public Evaluation of Program 406(b)(2)(A)(v)

Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification A state must develop a risk-based beach evaluation and classification plan and apply it to state coastal recreation waters. A state or tribal program must describe the factors used in its evaluation and classification process and explain how its beaches are ranked as a result of the process. The process must result in the identification of a list of coastal recreation waters in the state, including coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access used by the public. Sampling Design and Monitoring Plan A state must develop a sampling design and monitoring implementation plan. The plan must adequately address the frequency and location of monitoring and assessment of coastal recreation waters according to the periods of recreational use of the waters, the nature and extent of use during certain periods, the proximity of the waters to known point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution, and any effect of storm events on the waters. Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation A state must develop a mechanism to collect relevant information, submit timely reports to the  EPA, and document any delegation of monitoring responsibilities to local governments. Report Submission A state recipient of a grant must submit to the EPA Administrator timely information and reports that describe the data collected as part of the monitoring program and the actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded. Delegation If monitoring responsibilities are delegated to local governments, the state grant recipient must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local governments responsibility for implementing the monitoring program. Methods and Assessment Procedures A state must develop detailed methods and assessment procedures. Those procedures must adequately address both the methods to be used for detecting levels of pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health and the assessment procedures for identifying short-term increases in pathogens and pathogen indicators that are harmful to human health. Public Notification and Risk Communication Plan A state must develop an overall public notification and risk communication plan. The plan must describe the state's public notification efforts and measures to inform the public of the potential risks associated with water contact activities in the coastal recreation waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards. Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments A state must identify measures for promptly communicating to the EPA and local governments of the occurrence, nature, location, pollutants involved, and extent of any exceeding of, or likelihood of exceeding, applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators. The state must identify how that information will be promptly communicated to the EPA and to a designated official of the local government that has jurisdiction over land adjoining the coastal recreation waters for which the failure to meet applicable standards has been identified. Measures to Notify the Public A state must develop measures to notify the public by posting signs at beaches or similar points of access or through functionally equivalent communication measures that are sufficient to give notice to the public that the coastal recreation waters are not meeting or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators. Notification Report Submission and Delegations A state must develop a mechanism to collect relevant information, submit timely reports to the EPA, and document any delegation of notification responsibilities to local governments. Report Submission A state or tribal recipient of a grant must submit to the EPA Administrator timely information and reports that describe data collected as part of the notification program and the actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded. Delegation If notification responsibilities are delegated to local governments, the state grant recipient must describe the process by which the state may delegate to local governments responsibility for implementing the notification program. Public Evaluation of Program A state must identify how to provide the public with an opportunity to review the program through a process that provides for public notice, review, and an opportunity to comment. That can be accomplished through a record of public comments, meetings, forums, or workshops. 5.	The Information Collected-agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5(a)	Agency Activities  The BEACH Act Grant Program will be administered by the EPA Headquarters and the EPA Regional Offices, which have planned for and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management of the grant program. The EPA is conducting the following activities in administering the BEACH Act grants: The EPA Headquarters is to monitor state programs annually to ensure compliance with the performance criteria. The EPA Regions are to monitor state programs annually to ensure compliance with the performance criteria. The EPA Regions and the EPA Headquarters are to provide miscellaneous support to the states. The EPA Regions are to revise work plans and update the Quality Management Plan. The EPA Regions are to perform technical review of a Quality Assurance Project Plan and Grants Management Plan. Regions are to ensure that a Quality Assurance Project Plan is complete before implementation. 5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management  The EPA Beach Program encourages states to electronically transmit beach monitoring and notification data directly to the EPA. Electronic reporting is intended to achieve data collection efficiencies and reduce the possibility of data input error. It is the state's responsibility to conduct ongoing data analysis, including performing data quality assurance/quality control to check for anomalies in the data that might be related to data entry or laboratory errors. Data quality review and analysis will include continuous analysis of laboratory results, pollution occurrence events, public notification, and review of all program data. The beach monitoring and notification data will be maintained in the eBEACHES data system. Reporting of beach data to the EPA consists of beach program information, notification data, monitoring data, locational data. The data collected under the BEACH Act Grant Program will be used for program performance evaluation to determine if a state program is consistent with the BEACH Guidance and Performance Criteria document, to analyze pollution occurrences at beaches across the nation and report to Congress on the status of the nation's recreation waters. 5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility  Measures to assist small entities are not applicable because the respondents for the BEACH Act Grant Program are state government agencies. However, the EPA may make a grant to a local government for implementing a monitoring and notification program only if, after the 1-year period beginning on the date of publication of performance criteria, the EPA determines that the state is not implementing a program that meets the performance criteria. 5(d)	Collection Schedule  A state must show evidence documenting its compliance with the nine performance criteria as listed in the Federal Register and the National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria to be eligible for a BEACH Act Grant. 6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden  The BEACH Act requires states to devote time and resources to implement a monitoring and notification program to meet the performance criteria outlined in the National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Recreation Waters. To develop burden estimates, the EPA estimated the number of hours that will be required by states to adhere to the following performance criteria:    1. A risk-based beach evaluation and classification plan.    2. A sampling design and monitoring implementation plan.    3. Monitoring report submission and delegation procedures.    4. Methods and assessment procedures.    5. A public notification and risk communication plan.    6. Measures to notify the EPA and local governments.    7. Measures to notify the public.    8. Notification report submission and delegation procedures.    9. Public evaluation of the program. The Agency estimated that implementing a monitoring and notification program in accordance with the nine performance criteria will take an annual average of 88,812 hours and $3,943,080 O&M for all 37 respondents. The following assumptions were made for this ICR on the basis of data collected by the EPA and consultations with respondents listed in section 3(c): The average beach (monitoring) season was assumed to be 18 weeks. The average number of samples collected per week at each monitored beach during the beach season was assumed to be 2 samples. The average cost of sample analysis was assumed to be $30 per sample. The frequency of reporting to the EPA is assumed to be quarterly. 6(b)	Estimating Respondent Cost  The annual cost for a state to implement the performance criteria necessary to comply with the BEACH Act Grant Program are attributed to labor costs and O&M costs. The total cost burden over 3 years for the 37 states and territories is estimated to be $34,390,927, which consists of $22,561,687 in labor costs and $11,829,240 in O&M costs.  Labor Costs To develop labor costs, the EPA multiplied the number of hours that will be required to implement a monitoring and notification plan by the state employee hourly rate to generate a cost estimate. Because labor rates vary so widely among the state government personnel involved in implementing a state monitoring and notification program, the EPA used an average loaded hourly rate that is representative of the average salary for a managerial and technical state employee as listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for full-time state and local government workers in the 2010 National Compensation Survey. The managerial salary of $134.19 per hour is calculated as the hourly rate of $51.61 times an overhead factor of 1.6. That is, $51.61 + ($51.61 x 1.6) = $134.19. The technical salary of $80.83 per hour is calculated as $31.09 times the 1.6 factor. Table 2 presents an estimate of the burden that state governments will incur to meet each performance criterion outlined in the National Beach Guidance and Grant Performance Criteria for Recreation Waters. The table identifies the activities to be performed by the state, the associated hours required for each activity, and the labor cost for each activity. Annual totals are presented at the end of Table 2.  Operation and Maintenance Costs  In addition to labor costs, the states and territories incur O&M costs associated with the analytical fees and shipping for the water quality samples. Non-labor costs for the 37 states and territories are solely attributed to the laboratory fees that will be charged for analysis and to shipping charges for sending the sample bottles to the appropriate laboratory.   Table 2. Individual respondent 3-year state burden hours   Performance criterion State activity                            3-year  managerial burden                            3-year  technical burden                              Total  3-year burden

                       Total burden per activity (hours)                     Total labor cost $134.19/hour (dollars)                        Total burden per activity (hours)                                Total labor cost                             $80.83/ hour (dollars)                        Total burden per activity (hours)                           Total labor cost (dollars) 1 - Risk-based Beach Evaluation and Classification Identify coastal recreation waters 1 $134 6 $485 7 $619

Identify and submit list of monitored waters 1 $134 6 $485 7 $619

Collect and submit beach lat/long coordinates (georeference beaches using maps, GPS, etc.) 20 $2,684 180 $14,550 200 $17,234

Identify bathing beaches and submit beach miles 20 $2,684 80 $6,467 100 $9,150

Determine legal authority for administering monitoring and notification programs 3 $403 6 $485 9 $888

Review available information 5 $671 15 $1,213 20 $1,883

Rank beaches 3 $403 100 $8,083 103 $8,486

Performance Criterion 1 Total 53 $7,112 393 $31,768 446 $38,880 2 - Sampling Design and Monitoring Implementation Plan Identify sampling plan (when and where to sample, what depth to sample, etc.) 3 $403 5 $404 8 $807

Ensure data quality 12 $1,610 100 $8,083 112 $9,694

Staff monitoring programs 4 $537 7 $566 11 $1,103

Train monitoring staff 16 $2,147 200 $16,167 216 $18,314

Create database and data submission process 40 $5,367 360 $29,100 400 $34,468

Manage data for beach season 20 $2,684 180 $14,550 200 $17,234

Program implementation and oversight 120 $16,102 120 $9,700 240 $25,802

Performance Criterion 2 Total 215 $28,850 972 $78,571 1,187 $107,421 3 - Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation Submit report that describes data collected and public notification activities 12 $1,610 35 $2,829 47 $4,439

Describe process by which the state may delegate to local governments the responsibility for implementing a monitoring program 6 $805 18 $1,455 24 $2,260

Performance Criterion 3 Total 18 $2,415 53 $4,284 71 $6,700 4 - Methods and Assessment Procedures Identify laboratories for analysis 1 $134 12 $970 13 $1,104

Determine analytical procedures 0 $0 4 $323 4 $323

Identify sample collection techniques 1 $134 6 $485 7 $619

Collect water sample 0 $0 1,350 $109,126 1,350 $109,126

Determine data validation and verification procedures 2 $268 9 $728 11 $996

Analyze and submit monitoring data to the EPA 140 $18,786 2,600 $210,168 2,740 $228,954

Identify the use of predictive tools in beach monitoring. (If using predictive tools, identify what type of tool, how used, how applicable, etc.) 4 $537 20 $1,617 24 $2,153

Performance Criterion 4 Total 148 $19,860 4,001 $323,417 4,149 $343,276 5 - Public Notification and Risk Communica-tion Plan Perform a problem assessment and audience identification 2 $268 22 $1,778 24 $2,047

Determine and develop content and procedures for advisories and closings 4 $537 44 $3,557 48 $4,093

Performance Criterion 5 Total 6 $805 66 $5,335 72 $6,140 6 - Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments Determine the mechanisms for states to notify local governments of advisories and closings, and removal of advisories and closings 3 $403 23 $1,859 26 $2,262

Determine the mechanisms for states to notify the EPA of advisories, closings, and removal of advisories and closings  1 $134 13 $1,051 14 $1,185

Collect and submit notification data to the EPA 4 $537 22 $1,778 26 $2,315

Performance Criterion  6 Total 8 $1,073 58 $4,688 66 $5,762 7 - Measures to Notify the Public Determine the mechanisms for states to notify the public of advisories, closings, and removal of advisories and closings 2 $268 20 $1,617 22 $1,885

Implement notification program (could include posting signs or functional equivalent) 45 $6,038 855 $69,113 900 $75,151

Performance Criterion 7 Total 47 $6,307 875 $70,730 922 $77,036 8 - Notification Report Submission and Delegation Submit report that describes data collected and the public notification activities 6 $805 50 $4,042 56 $4,847

Describe process by which the state may delegate to local governments the responsibility for implementing a notification program  2 $268 22 $1,778 24 $2,047

Performance Criterion 8 Total 8 $1,073 72 $5,820 80 $6,894 9 - Public Evaluation of Program Ensure the monitoring and notification program meets the needs of the audiences and the objectives of the Agency 8 $1,073 96 $7,760 104 $8,834

Evaluate the monitoring and notification program 8 $1,073 96 $7,760 104 $8,834

Performance Criterion 9 Total 16 $2,147 192 $15,520 208 $17,667 Total 519 $69,643 6,682 $540,133 7,201 $609,775 Annual Total 173 $23,214 2,227 $180,044 2,400 $203,258

The O&M costs were calculated as an average for the 3,651 coastal and Great Lakes beaches identified in EPA's 2010 National Beaches Survey (the most recent version available) for the 37 states and territories eligible to participate in the BEACH Act Grant Program. The EPA obtained laboratory fees and shipping costs from testing labs and estimated the cost to be $30 per sample. The cost for each state was calculated using the equation below: 3,651 beaches x 36 samples (twice per week for 18 week season) x $30/sample =  $106,570/state                                    37 states EPA estimates an annual O&M cost of $106,570 per state, an annual total O&M cost of $3,943,080 for all 37 states, and a total O&M cost of $11,829,240 for 37 states over 3 years. 6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost  The BEACH Act requires the EPA to devote time and resources to manage the grant program. To develop burden estimates, the EPA estimated the number of hours that will be required to administer the program. The Agency estimates that it will take 85 hours per respondent to review and process the applications, monitor respondent programs, and provide miscellaneous support. When multiplied by 37 respondents, the annual Agency burden is 3,145 hours to administer the program and a total Agency burden of 9,435 hours over 3 years. The Agency used an average hourly salary for Agency employees of $107.15, which was calculated using an hourly rate of $41.21 times an overhead factor of 1.6. That is, $41.21 + ($41.21 x 1.6) = $107.15. The labor rate was obtained using 2011 salary tables provided by the Office of Personnel Management. Table 3 presents an estimate of the burden that the EPA will incur to manage the BEACH Act Grant Program for years 1 through 3 of this ICR. The annual totals are presented at the bottom of the table. Table 3. Total Agency burden hours per activity over 3 years  Activities                               Agency burden hours                              Agency burden dollars The EPA Headquarters to monitor state programs annually to ensure compliance with the performance criteria. 1,480 $158,582 The EPA Regions to monitor state programs annually to ensure compliance with the performance criteria. 2,035 $218,050 The EPA Headquarters and the EPA Regions to provide miscellaneous support to states.  1,480 $158,582 The EPA Regions to revise work plans and update beach monitoring and notification program procedures.  1,268 $135,866 The EPA Regions to perform technical review on Quality Assurance Project Plan and Grants Management Plan, DQOs and SOPs prior to implementation. 3,172 $339,880 Total over 3 years 9,435 $1,010,960 Annual total 3,145 $336,987

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs  Table 4 presents an estimate of the total respondent burden and costs expected for the BEACH Act Grant Program. The total annual respondent burden is expected to be 88,812 hours and $3,943,080 O&M Costs. There are no start-up costs.  Table 4. Annual respondent burden and cost                               Performance criteria                              Respondent hours/year                           Respondent labor cost/year                                O&M cost/year                           Number of respondents/year                                Total hours/year                                 Total cost/year                                        1 149 $12,960

37 5,501 $479,515                                        2 396 $35,807

37 14,640 $1,324,855                                        3 24 $2,233

37 876 $82,628                                        4 1,383 $114,425

37 51,171 $4,233,742                                        5 24 $2,047

37 888 $75,729                                        6 22 $1,921

37 814 $71,063                                        7 307 $25,679

37 11,371 $950,117                                        8 27 $2,298

37 987 $85,020                                        9 69 $5,889

37 2,565 $217,894                                      Total 2,400 $203,258 $3,943,080 37 88,812 $11,463,642

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables  Table 5 presents an estimate of the total annual State and Agency burden and costs expected for the BEACH Act Grant Program. As shown in Table 5, the annual burden for the Agency and 37 states, tribes, and territories with coastal recreation waters is 91,957 hours and $11,800,629 including O&M costs. Table 5. Total annual respondent and Agency burden and costs

                                Burden (hours)                                   Burden cost                                  O&M cost                                   Total Cost 37 States 88,812 $7,520,562 $3,943,080 $11,463,642 Agency 3,145 $336,987 $0 $336,987 Total 91,957 $7,857,549 $3,943,080 $11,800,629   6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden  The respondent average annual burden increased from the 2008 level of 2,374 hours to 2,400 hours for the total number of 37 respondents. The Agency annual burden decreased from the 2008 level of 3,200 hours to 3,145 hours. The EPA used 37 for the number of respondents (37 currently receive BEACH Act grants) compared to 40 respondents used in the 2008 ICR. The EPA used 40 for the number of respondents in the 2008 ICR because the Agency expected additional tribes to apply for BEACH Act grants that had not done so during the original ICR period. However, no additional tribes applied for grants. Therefore, for this ICR renewal the EPA used the actual number (37) of states, territories, and tribes that currently receive BEACH Act grants. The increase in respondent burden is because the EPA is encouraging states to voluntarily report monitoring and notification data more frequently, up to four times each year. The increase in burden is minimized, however, because respondents have become more efficient in their reporting of data and information over the past several years and the EPA has made improvements to the eBEACHES data system. The annual O&M costs for all respondents also increased from $3,938,760 to $3,943,080 for all states. That is because the estimated number of beaches monitored by grant recipients increased slightly from 3,647 (estimated from the EPA's 2007 National List of Beaches) to 3,651 (estimated from the 2010 Annual Swimming Season Report). Relative to the 2008 ICR, the EPA maintained its estimate of two samples collected each week per monitored beach with a beach season length of 18 weeks and sample cost of $30 per sample, according to data that the EPA collected and comments received from several state Beach Program contacts and testing labs. The EPA also revised the labor rates, which increased from $47.00 to 51.61 for a managerial employee and decreased from $31.25 to $31.09 for a technical employee according to the average Bureau of Labor Statistics salaries for managerial and technical employees in state and local governments as shown in its 2010 National Compensation Survey Table. The changes are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Change in annual state burden for performance criteria tasks Performance criteria State activity                           Total annual burden (hours)                     Change between current and previous ICR                                                                                Current ICR                                  Previous ICR                                         3 - Monitoring Report Submission and Delegation Submit report that describes data collected and public notification activities 16 13 3 4 - Methods and Assessment Procedures Analyze and submit monitoring data to the EPA 913 900 13 6 - Measures to Notify EPA and Local Governments Collect and submit notification data to the EPA 9 4 4 8  -  Notification Report Submission and Delegation Submit report that describes data collected and the public notification activities 19 13 6  *Numbers might not add up exactly due to rounding. 6(g)	Burden Statement  The annual respondent burden and cost estimate for 37 states for the BEACH Grant Program is estimated to be 88,812 hours and $11,463,642 (including labor and O&M costs). There are no start-up costs. Because the Agency does not incur any additional O&M costs, the total annual respondent and Agency burden and cost estimate is 91,957 hours and $11,800,629 (includes respondent burden costs, O&M costs, and Agency burden costs). 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. That includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Part 15.   	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0357, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available through Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/. To submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically, use the Regulations.gov website. Once there, click search, then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0357 and OMB control number 2040-0244 in any correspondence.


Table 1. ANNUAL BURDEN & COST FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PART 63 SUBPART M ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E)

EPA hr per Occurrences Clerical Mgmt hr/ Technical hr/ ( F)

Burden Item occurrence Per year hour/ year Year Year Cost, $

1. Report Review A. Initial notification report 1 2,571 257 128 2,571 105,796.65 B. Solvent consumption report 1 785 78 39 785 32,302.75 C. Report exceed consumption cutoff 1 128 13 6 128 5,267.20 D. Compliance method report 1 1,786 18 89 1,786 73,493.90

Total Burden and Cost 366 262 5,270 216,860.50 Costs are based on the following hourly rates: clerical at $ 17, management at $ 51, and technical at $ 37.

C = E x 0.1 D = E x 0.05 E = A x B


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28026]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR11-7-000]

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on May 2, 2011, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP
(TransCanada Keystone) filed a request for waiver of the requirement in
18 CFR 342.4(c) that it submit a verified statement in support of
future changes to its committed rates.
    TransCanada Keystone states that good cause exists to grant such a
waiver because TransCanada Keystone's committed shippers have already
agreed in writing to the changes TransCanada Keystone is contractually
permitted to make to its committed rates, and the Commission has
previously granted such a waiver under these circumstances.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

    Dated: May 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11732 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 [Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 166)] [ Notices]                [Page 50321] [DOCID:fr26au08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI08-13-000]

  James and Patricia Tyrpin; Notice of Declaration of Intention and

Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

August 19, 2008.

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the

Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.

    b. Docket No.: DI08-13-000.

    c. Date Filed: August 7, 2008.

    d. Applicant: James and Patricia Tyrpin.

    e. Name of Project: Tyrpin Micro Hydro Project.

    f. Location: The proposed Tyrpin Micro Hydro Project will be

located on an unnamed Creek in West Finley Township, Washington County,

Pennsylvania.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16

U.S.C. 817(b).

    h. Applicant Contact: James and Patricia Tyrpin, 2278 E. National

Pike, Scenery Hill, PA 15360; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax: (724)

769-1439; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed

to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions:

September 19, 2008.

    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be

filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. Any questions,

please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)

and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Please include the docket number (DI08-13-000) on any comments,

protests, and/or motions filed.

    k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river Tyrpin Micro

Hydro Project will include: (1) A 2-to-4-inch, 1,500-foot-long pipe

from an intake on an unnamed stream to a proposed powerhouse,

containing a <10-kW generator; (2) a short tailrace, returning the

water to the unnamed stream; and (3) appurtenant facilities. Power

generated will be used on-site. The project will not be connected to an

interstate grid.

    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to

investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign

commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also

determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a

navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or

reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or

water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved

or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have

increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,

or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design

or operation.

    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file

with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This

filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link; select ``Docket'' and follow the

instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing

list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,

.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission

will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who

file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules

may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or

motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must

bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/

OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of

the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any

motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the

Applicant specified in the particular application.

    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited

to file comments on the described application. A copy of the

application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If

an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing

comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an

agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-19681 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60915-60917]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24527]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0556; FRL-9736-8]

Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Washoe County
Air Quality District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Washoe County
Air District Board of Health (WCDBOH) portion of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal
Register on July 30, 2012 and concerns regulations regarding compliance
with permit conditions, recordkeeping, source sampling and testing, and
statements of compliance with 40 CFR Part 70 permits. We are approving
local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: These rules will be effective on November 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0556 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44560), EPA proposed to approve a draft
version of the following rules because we determined that they complied
with the relevant CAA requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency                Rule No.                               Rule title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCDBOH..........................           030.218  Demonstration of Compliance.
WCDBOH..........................           030.230  Record Keeping.
WCDBOH..........................           030.235  Requirements for Source Sampling.
WCDBOH..........................          030.970A  Part 70 Permit Monitoring and Compliance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our
evaluation. Our proposed approval responded to a July 5, 2012 request
from the State to parallel process a version of these rules proposed
for local adoption on June 28, 2012. On August 30, 2012, NDEP submitted
to EPA official copies of Washoe County Rules 030.218, 030.230,
030.235, and 030.970A that were adopted locally on June 28, 2012. On
September 10, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for these Washoe
County Rules met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix
V, which must be met before formal EPA review. We have reviewed the
versions of these rules and they are unchanged from the version we
proposed to approve on July 30, 2012.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized under
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into
the Nevada SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2012. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 14, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
 Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 DD--Nevada

0
2. In Sec.  52.1470, in paragraph (c), Table 7 is amended by adding
four new entries for sections 030.218, 030.230, 030.235, and 030.970A
in alphanumeric order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 Table 7--EPA-Approved Washoe County Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              District
   District citation      Title/subject    effective date  EPA approval date        Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
030.218...............  ``Demonstration          06/28/12  10/05/12 [Insert   Submitted on 08/30/12.
                         of Compliance''.                   Federal Register
                                                            page number
                                                            where the
                                                            document begins].
030.230...............  ``Record                 06/28/12  10/05/12 [Insert   Submitted on 08/30/12.
                         Keeping''.                         Federal Register
                                                            page number
                                                            where the
                                                            document begins.
030.235...............  ``Requirements           06/28/12  10/05/12 [Insert   ..................................
                         for Source                         Federal Register
                         Sampling and                       page number
                         Testing''.                         where the
                                                            document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
030.970A..............  ``Part 70 Permit         06/28/12  10/05/12 [Insert   ..................................
                         Monitoring and                     Federal Register
                         Compliance''.                      page number
                                                            where the
                                                            document begins].

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

[FR Doc. 2012-24527 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 76100]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27038]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 15, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: December 8, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27038 Filed 12-8-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21098-21099]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1424; Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-268 and V-474, Revocation of
Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal Airway V-119, and Establishment of Area
Navigation Route Q-178 in the Vicinity of Indian Head, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Federal Register on March 27, 2023, that amended Very High Frequency
(VHF) Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-268 and V-474,
revoked Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal airway V-119, and established
Area Navigation (RNAV) route Q-178. In the final rule, one of the two
categorical exclusion references listed in the Environmental Review
section of the preamble was incorrect. The final rule Environmental
Review section referenced categorical exclusions pursuant to FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraphs 5-
6.5a and 5-6.5k, in error. The correct categorical exclusion references
are FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 5-6.5a and 5-6.5i. This action
corrects that error.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, June 15, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, the final rule, this final rule correction, and all
background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using
the FAA Docket number. Electronic retrieval help

and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2022-1424 in the
Federal Register (88 FR 18026; March 27, 2023), amending VOR Federal
airways V-268 and V-474, revoking Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal
airway V-119, and establishing RNAV route Q-178 due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Indian Head, PA, VOR/Tactical
Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigational aid (NAVAID). Subsequent to
publication, the FAA determined that the environmental review
categorical exclusion references listed in the preamble were incorrect.
The final rule Environmental Review section in the preamble listed FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 5-6.5a and 5-6.5k as the supporting
categorical exclusion references; however, upon further review, the FAA
determined the references should be FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraphs 5-
6.5a and 5-6.5i. This rule corrects the preamble discussion of the
categorical exclusion references listed in the Environmental Review
section of the final rule.
    This action does not alter the alignment of the amended, revoked,
or established Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes listed in the final
rule.

Correction to Final Rule

    [ssquf] Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
first sentence in the Environmental Review section contained in the
preamble in Docket No. FAA-2022-1424, as published in the Federal
Register of March 27, 2023 (88 FR 18026), FR Doc. 2023-06101, is
corrected as follows:
    1. In FR Doc. 2023-06101, appearing on page 18027, in the second
and third columns, replace the first sentence in the Environmental
Review section to read,
    ``The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal
airways V-268 and V-474, revoking Jet Route J-518 and VOR Federal
airway V-119, and establishing RNAV route Q-178, due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Indian Head, PA, VORTAC
NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-
6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace
areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71,
Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic
Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5i, which
categorically excludes from further environment impact review the
establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima. For modifications to air
traffic procedures at or above 3,000 feet AGL, the Noise Screening Tool
(NST) or other FAA-approved environmental screening methodology should
be applied.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-07240 Filed 4-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P