[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20126-20129]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09579]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83148; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2018-01]

Consolidated Tape Association; Order of Summary Abrogation of the
Twenty-Third Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA
Plan and the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan

May 1, 2018.

I. Introduction

    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ is summarily
abrogating the Twenty-Third Charges Amendment

to the Second Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association
(``CTA'') Plan and the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated
Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan (collectively, ``Plans'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978)
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980),
45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan).
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is
a national market system plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 5, 2018 \4\ the participants of the Plans
(``Participants'') \5\ filed with the Commission a proposal to amend
the Plans (``Amendment''), pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\6\ and
Rule 608 thereunder.\7\ The Amendment, which was effective upon filing
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) of Regulation NMS,\8\ modified the Plans'
fee schedules to adopt changes to the Broker-Dealer Enterprise Maximum
Monthly Charge and Per-Quote-Packet Charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 823937 (March 23,
2018), 83 FR 13539 (March 29, 2018) (``Notice of Filing'').
    \5\ The Participants are: Cboe BYX Exchange; Inc.; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;
Investors Exchange LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Nasdaq
PHLX LLC; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; NYSE National, Inc.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Amendment

A. Amendments to Enterprise Cap

    The Amendment modified the Plans' fee schedules to increase the
Broker-Dealer Enterprise Maximum Monthly Charge (``Enterprise Cap'')
from $686,400 to $1,260,000 for Network A and from $520,000 to $680,000
for Network B. The Participants stated that as a result of industry
consolidation, the Nonprofessional Subscriber base for entities subject
to the Enterprise Cap may suddenly increase, and whereas before two
entities may have benefited slightly from the Enterprise Cap, a
combined entity could achieve a substantial decrease in fees by using
the Enterprise Cap. Consequently, the Participants stated, the increase
of the Enterprise Cap was designed to maintain the status quo and
should not have, in conjunction with the Per-Quote-Packet Charges
described below, resulted in an increase of revenue to the Plans or
fees for any particular entity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Participants noted that very few entities take advantage
of the Enterprise Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Amendment modified the Plans to remove a provision
relating to annual increases of the Enterprise Cap after a two-thirds
vote of the Participants. In 2013,\10\ the Participants amended the
mechanism by which the Enterprise Cap would increase, from an automatic
increase based on volume, to a requirement for an affirmative vote of
the Participants. The Participants have not used this mechanism to
increase the Enterprise Cap. The Participants believe that any future
changes to the Enterprise Cap should be filed with the Commission and
subject to public comment. Consequently, the Participants proposed to
delete this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (July 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (July 25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Amendments to the Per-Quote-Packet Charges

    The Participants stated that because of the increase in the
Enterprise Cap, there could have been broker-dealers that used the
Enterprise Cap that, without a corresponding offset, could have faced
an increase in fees. To offset the potential fee increase, the
Amendment modified the text of the Plans' fee schedules to reduce the
Plans' Per-Quote-Packet Charges for broker-dealers with 500,000 or more
Nonprofessional Subscribers from $.0075 to $.0025.
    The Participants stated that by implementing a tiered structure for
Per-Quote-Packet Charges, the proposal was designed to provide an
offset to those firms most likely affected by the Enterprise Cap
increase (i.e., those with a large Nonprofessional Subscriber base).
Additionally, the Participants stated that the proposal would align the
tiered structures for Networks A and B with those of Network C.
    Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,\11\ the
Participants designated the Amendment as establishing or changing a fee
or other charge collected on their behalf in connection with access to,
or use of, the facilities contemplated by the Plans. As a result, the
Amendment was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Amendment
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 29,
2018.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
    \12\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received two comment letters in response to the
Notice of Filing,\13\ and a response thereto from the Participants.\14\
Healthy Markets \15\ urged the Commission to summarily abrogate the
Amendment on grounds that it is not appropriately justified, is
discriminatory, and is contrary to the original purpose of the
Enterprise Cap. Healthy Markets also stated that the Enterprise Cap
should be eliminated as part of the broader process of modernizing the
CTA and CQ fee schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See letters from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director,
Healthy Markets Association (``Healthy Markets''), dated April 11,
2018 (``Healthy Markets Letter''), and Melissa MacGregor, Managing
Director, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA''), dated April 19, 2018 (``SIFMA Letter''), to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission.
    \14\ See Letter from Emily Kasparov to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated April 27, 2018 (``Participants'
Response'').
    \15\ Healthy Markets also commented on other items that are not
germane to the instant filing, such, as SR-CTA/CQ-2017-14 and
broader recommendations for NMS Plans and Securities Information
Processor Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Healthy Markets stated that the Participants failed
to support their representations regarding industry consolidation and
noted that the Amendment lacks any detailed justification or
analysis.\16\ In addition, Healthy Markets stated that the
Participants' representation that the Amendment may be revenue neutral
does not demonstrate that the Amendment is consistent with the Act
whose goal is to protect the public interest by, amongst other things,
promoting competition, the reasonable allocation of fees, and non-
discrimination.\17\ Healthy Markets also argues that the Amendment is
discriminatory in that it appears to target a very small segment of
firms, possibly a single firm.\18\ Lastly, Healthy Market stated that
the Enterprise Cap should be eliminated as part of the broader process
of modernizing the CTA and CQ fee schedules to simply allow for the
non-discriminatory, consistent access and pricing of public market
data.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 13 at 6.
    \17\ See id. at 6-7.
    \18\ See id. at 6.
    \19\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comment letter, SIFMA stated that the information provided
by the Participants in the Amendment with respect to, among other
things, cost, revenue, and customer data, is insufficient to permit the
Commission to determine whether the Amendment is

consistent with the Act.\20\ SIFMA stated that only the Participants,
and not SIFMA or other market participants, possess the information
necessary to evaluate the Amendment.\21\ SIFMA also stated that, costs,
and not revenue neutrality as the Participants suggest, is the relevant
factor in assessing whether the Amendment is consistent with the
Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 13 at 1-3. SIFMA also stated
that absent data demonstrating a reasonable relationship between
core data revenues and the costs of collecting and disseminating
data, it is doubtful that maintaining the status quo with respect to
market data fees is consistent with the Act. According to SIFMA, the
governance structure for NMS plans is broken and market data fees
are not restrained by competitive forces, thus maintaining the
status quo with respect to market data fees could impose a burden on
competition. See id. at 3.
    \21\ See id. at 1-3.
    \22\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Participants stated that the comments received are
misguided or incorrect, and require no further response from the
Participants.\23\ In addition, the Participants stated that market
participants have access to the information necessary to assess the
impact of the Amendments on revenue,\24\ asserting that data
subscribers can readily apply the new fee schedule to their historical
usage to project future usage and thereby determine whether the
Participants' representations concerning the effect on revenue hold
true.\25\ The Participants also noted that only industry associations
commented on the Amendments, and that individual market data
subscribers could have commented on the Amendments had the
Participants'analysis been incorrect.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Participants' Response, supra note 14 at 1-2.
    \24\ See Participants' Response, supra note 14 at 1.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \27\ and Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of
Regulation NMS thereunder,\28\ at any time within 60 days of the filing
of any such amendment, the Commission may summarily abrogate the
amendment and require that the amendment be re-filed in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 \29\ and reviewed in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608,\30\ if it appears to the Commission that
such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Commission is concerned that the information and
justifications provided by the Participants are not sufficient for the
Commission to determine whether the Amendment is consistent with the
Act. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the procedures set forth
in Rule 608(b)(2) \31\ will provide a more appropriate mechanism for
determining whether the Amendment is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \28\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \29\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
    \30\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Amendment raises questions as to
whether the changes will result in fees that are fair and reasonable,
not unreasonably discriminatory,\32\ and that will not impose an undue
or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 11A of the
Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 242.603(a)(1)-(2), 17 CFR 242.608, and 15 U.S.C.
78k-1(a)(1)(C).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that the Participants have provided
sufficient information regarding, or adequate justification for, the
changes described in the Amendment. While the Participants represent
that they used certain data to calibrate the fee changes to achieve a
revenue neutral outcome \34\ none of that data is provided in the
Amendment, nor do the Participants provide any such information in
their response.\35\ The Commission is also concerned that the
Participants provided little information concerning the basis for, the
anticipated revenue effects of, and the effects on market participants
from, the Amendment. The Participants have not provided sufficient
information for the changes to be closely scrutinized for fairness and
reasonableness and the Amendment lacks support for the basis of, as
well as the application and likely effect of, the fees to determine
that the Amendment is not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4 at 13541.
    \35\ See Participants' Response, supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Enterprise Cap is approximately doubled for
Network A, while it is being raised by substantially less than half
from $520,000 to $680,000 for Network B. The Participants have provided
no justification for this difference. Similarly, the Participants did
not provide information to support their assertion that the increase of
the Enterprise Cap is designed to maintain the status quo and should
not, in conjunction with the Per-Quote Packet fee changes, result in an
increase of revenue to the Plans or of fees to any particular
entity.\36\ The Participants lowered the Per-Quote Packet fee for firms
with at least 500,000 non-professional accounts. However, the filing
does not indicate why the Participants chose to limit the lower fee to
firms that have 500,000 non-professional subscribers. The Participants
state that the Amendment does not impose any burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate because the fees are revenue neutral
and maintain the status quo. Because the Participants did not provide
the Commission with sufficient data to support their assertion that the
fee change should not result in an increase of revenue to the Plans or
to fees for any particular entity, the Commission is unable to evaluate
the Participants' assertions that the Amendment does not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id. at 13540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission believes it necessary
or appropriate to summarily abrogate the Amendment and terminate its
status as immediately effective. The Commission believes that the
procedures set forth in Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS \37\ will
provide a more appropriate mechanism for determining whether the
Amendment is consistent with the Act. Therefore, the Commission
believes that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act, to summarily abrogate the Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\38\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\39\ that the Twenty-Third Charges Amendment to
the CTA Plan and the Fourteenth Charges Amendment to the Restated CQ
Plan (SR-CTA/CQ-2018-01) be, and hereby is, summarily abrogated. If the
Participants choose to re-file the Amendment, they must do so pursuant
to Section 11A of the Act and the Amendment must be re-filed in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 of Regulation NMS \40\ for
review in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608 of Regulation
NMS.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \39\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \40\ 17 CFR 242.608(a)(1).
    \41\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2).

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

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09579 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 1926]
[FR Doc No: 2012-411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1945-001; ER10-1946-001; ER10-1942-005; ER10-
2042-006; ER10-1936-001; ER10-1892-001; ER10-1886-001; ER10-1872-001;
ER10-1871-001; ER10-1863-001; ER10-1859-001.
    Applicants: Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, L.L.C., Broad River
Energy LLC, Calpine Construction Finance Company, LP, Calpine Energy
Services, L.P., Carville Energy LLC, Columbia Energy LLC, Decatur
Energy Center, LLC, Mobile Energy LLC, Morgan Energy Center, LLC, Pine
Bluff Energy, LLC, Santa Rosa Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of Auburndale Peaker
Energy Center, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5297.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2739-003; ER10-2743-002; ER10-1842-003; ER10-
2793-002.
    Applicants: Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C., DeSoto County
Generating Company, LLC, LS Power Marketing, LLC, Calhoun Power
Company, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of LS Power Marketing,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5294.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3168-002.
    Applicants: ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southeast Region
of ArcLight Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/30/11.
    Accession Number: 20111230-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-753-000.
    Applicants: RITELine Illinois, LLC, RITELine Indiana, LLC.
    Description: RITELine Illinois, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): RITELine Indiana 20120103 Filing to be effective 3/4/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-754-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P.
    Description: Calpine Energy Services, L.P. submits tariff filing
per 35: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 1/4/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-755-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P.
    Description: Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P. submits
tariff filing per 35: Revision to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 1/4/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-756-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool.
    Description: Filing of ICR-Related Values for 2015/2016 Capability
Year.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5285.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-757-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc.'s Informational Filing for the
Sixth Forward Capacity Auction.
    Filed Date: 1/3/12.
    Accession Number: 20120103-5286.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 4, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-411 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27833]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 31, 2012

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0047.
    Date Filed: March 27, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify
Scope: April 17, 2012.

Description

    Application of Joint Stock Company Aircompany ``Yakutia''
(``Yakutia'') requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit
authorizing Yakutia to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation
of persons, property, and mail between any point or points in the
Russian Federation and any point or points in Alaska. Yakutia further
requests that its exemption and permit authorize it to engage in
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between any point or points in the Russian Federation and any point or
points in the United States and to conduct other charter trips in
foreign air transportation.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-11281 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 1248-1249]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-64]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57065; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-119]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Adoption of
New Exchange Rule 309 (Failure To Pay Fees)

 December 28, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 21, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'' 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 309, which delineates
procedures for the collection of fee arrearages due the Exchange. The
text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. New text is in
italics.
Admission of Members (Rules 300-324)
* * * * *

Rule 309. Failure to Pay Exchange Fees

    Any member, member organization or allied member who shall not pay
a fee or any other sums due to the Exchange, within forty-five days
after the same shall become payable, shall be reported to the Chief
Financial Officer of the Exchange or designee who, after notice has
been given to such member, member organization or allied member of such
arrearages, may suspend access to some or all of the facilities of the
Exchange until payment is made. Except that failure to pay any fine
levied in connection with a disciplinary action shall be governed by
Exchange Rule 476(k) (Disciplinary Proceedings Involving Charges
Against Members, Member Organizations, Allied Members, Approved
Persons, Employees, or Others).
    Denial of access to some or all of the facilities of the Exchange
through suspension under the provisions of this Rule shall not prevent
the member, member organization or allied member from being proceeded
against for any offense other than that for which such member, member
organization, or allied member was suspended.
* * * * *

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 seeks to adopt new procedures that relate to the
collection of fees due the Exchange. Currently, Exchange Rule 476(k)
delineates the procedures to address the failure of members, member
organizations or allied members to pay a fine (i.e., a fine levied in
connection with a disciplinary proceeding and related fees also
associated with a disciplinary proceeding), or any other sum due the
Exchange. Specifically, Exchange Rule 476(k) provides that upon written
notice to such members, member organizations or allied members and
notification of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Exchange
of the arrearage, the Board of Directors may suspend the member, member
organization or allied member for failure to pay the arrearages due the
Exchange until payment is made.
    The Exchange now proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 309 to provide
procedures to address members, member organizations and allied members
who fail to pay fees and any other sums due the Exchange. Types of
payments that would be considered a ``fee'' under proposed Rule 309
include, but are not limited to, regulatory fees (i.e., Gross Financial
and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report (FOCUS) revenue fees and
trading floor regulatory fees), trading license fees, and transaction
charges. Additionally, examples of payments that would constitute ``any
other sums'' include,

but are not limited to, charges for using Exchange Floor facilities and
equipment and phone service charges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Telephone bills for Exchange provided portable phones are
paid by the Exchange and thereafter the Exchange submits an invoice
to the member, member organization, and allied member for
reimbursement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 309, if payment is not made
within forty-five days, notice of the arrearage will be given to the
member, member organization or allied member and reported to Chief
Financial Officer (``CFO'') of the Exchange or a designee. The CFO or
designee will be responsible for determining and taking any remedial
action he or she deems appropriate, including suspension of the
delinquent member's, member organization's or allied member's access to
one or more Exchange facilities.
    The terms ``fees'' and ``any other sums'' in the text of proposed
Exchange Rule 309 will not include fines levied in connection with a
disciplinary proceeding. Failure to pay such disciplinary fines will
continue to be governed by the provisions of Rule 476(k). In any event,
the Exchange Treasurer will not be precluded from presenting notice of
any arrearage to the Board pursuant to Exchange Rule 476(k) where
appropriate.
    The current prerequisite of applying to the Exchange Board of
Directors to address the issue of other unpaid sums due the Exchange is
an inefficient and onerous process. Presently, invoices for fees and
any other sum due the Exchange are issued on a monthly basis to
members, member organizations and allied members. Payment is due upon
presentation of the invoice. After thirty days, another invoice is
issued for the current month and any outstanding balance due the
Exchange. Pursuant to Rule 476(k), the ability to suspend members,
member organizations and allied members for arrearages becomes
operative after 45 days. The relief afforded in Rule 476(k) currently
is not utilized by the Exchange; instead, arrearages are referred to
the Exchange's collections department for resolution.\4\ In order for
the Exchange to effect the efficient operations of its business, the
authority to address non-payment of sums due the Exchange, other than
disciplinary fines and related fees governed by Rule 476(k), is more
appropriately vested with Exchange senior management, who are more
familiar with the daily operation of the Exchange and thus more adept
than the Board of Directors at addressing these matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The collections department similarly does not avail itself
of the recourse provided in Exchange Rule 476(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to have notice of overdue fees
reported to the CFO or his designee and to vest in the CFO or his
designee the authority to determine what if any remedial action should
be taken upon receipt of a report that a member, member organization or
allied member failed to pay a fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \5\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \6\ that an Exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which NYSE consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-119 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-119. 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-NYSE-2007-119 and should be
submitted on or before January 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-25597 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57937]
[DOCID:fr02oc06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-606-000]

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

September 26, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2006, Northern Natural Gas
Company (Northern) tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth
Revised Volume No. 1:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 135D
Third Revised Sheet No. 142C
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 144

    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been
provided 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. E6-16158 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29131-29132]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11823]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9009-2]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 05/06/2013
Through 05/10/2013.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to EPA's agency-wide furlough day on
Friday, May 24th and the Federal holiday on Monday, May 27th, all EISs
must be filed with EPA by Thursday, May 23rd by 5:00 pm Eastern Time
for publication under a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register
for Friday, May 31st.
EIS No. 20130125, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/17/2013, Contact: Mary Nguyen 213-202-
3960.
EIS No. 20130126, Final EIS, BLM, AZ, Mohave County Wind Farm Project,
Review Period Ends: 06/17/2013, Contact: Jackie Neckels<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130127, Draft EIS, NMFS, AK, Steller Sea Lion Protection
Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2013, Contact:
Melanie Brown<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130128, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Pilgrim Timber Sale Project,
Kootenai National Forest, Review Period Ends: 06/17/2013, Contact: Doug
Grupenhoff<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130129, Draft EIS, USA, TX, Implementation of Energy, Water,
and Solid Waste Sustainability Initiatives at Fort Bliss, Texas and New
Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Pamela M. Klinger
210-466-1595.
EIS No. 20130130, Draft EIS, USFS, WY, Clinker Mining Addition Project,
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National
Grassland, Comment Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Amy Ormseth 307-
358-4690

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-11823 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20631-20632]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07888]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584; FRL-9530-1]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Plans (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0328.16, OMB
Control No. 2050-0021) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through June 30, 2013. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (77 FR 74659) on December
17, 2012 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPA-2007-0584, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless

the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George W. Denning, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-2404; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The authority for EPA's oil pollution prevention
requirements is derived from section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. EPA's regulation is
codified at 40 CFR part 112. An SPCC Plan will help an owner or
operator identify the necessary procedures, equipment and resources to
respond to prevent an oil spill and to respond to an oil spill in a
timely manner. If implemented effectively, the SPCC Plan is expected to
prevent oil spills and reduce the impact and severity of oil spills.
Although the owner or operator is the primary data user, EPA may also
require the owner or operator to submit data to the Agency in certain
situations to ensure facilities comply with the SPCC regulation and to
help allocate response resources. State and local governments may use
the data, which are not generally available elsewhere and can assist
local emergency preparedness planning efforts. EPA does not require an
owner or operator to submit SPCC Plans, but may request the SPCC Plan
during a facility inspection or an oil spill incident for review. The
SPCC regulation requires the owner or operator maintain a complete copy
of the Plan at the facility if the facility is normally attended at
least fours hours per day or at the nearest field office if the
facility is not so attended. The rule also requires that the Plan be
available to the Regional Administrator for on-site review during
normal working hours (40 CFR 112.3(e)).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private facilities, State/Local/
Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR part 112.
    Estimated number of respondents: 670,048 (total).
    Frequency of response: Less than once per year.
    Total estimated burden: 8,798,928 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $987,220,025, includes $186,674,814
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: Differences in burden and costs from the
previous ICR are attributed to adjustments for wage rates, unit costs,
and the projected universe of facilities.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-07888 Filed 4-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE  OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM	October 24, 2006

SUBJECT: 		Evaluation of Risk Mitigation Proposals for Application of
Azinphos methyl to Almonds

DP Barcode:	D311129

PC Code:	058001

TO:			Katie Hall, Chemical Review Manager

			Reregistration Branch 2

Special Review and Reregistration Division

FROM:		R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist

			Environmental Risk Branch 4

Colleen Flaherty, Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch 3

THROUGH:		Elizabeth Behl, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 4

Dan Rieder

Environmental Risk Branch 3

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

As a follow up to the interim reregistration of azinphos methyl in 2002
(OPP, 2002), additional data was submitted regarding the exposure of
workers to azinphos methyl. A reassessment of the occupational risk from
azinphos methyl is being conducted pursuant to the submission of this
data. Revised ecological risk assessments have also been conducted
(D307567, D307568) in concert with this reassessment to ensure Agency
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

	This document assesses the efficacy of buffer strips on the risks to
aquatic organisms from the application of azinphos methyl to almonds.
Buffer strips of 100 and 500 feet were assessed, as well as a scenario
with no drift, which simulates a very wide buffer (e.g., greater than
1000 feet) and assumes that the exposure is due only to runoff.

	Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) on almonds in California
are substantially reduced as the spray drift buffer is increased from
the current 25 ft (3.1 ppb) to 500 ft (0.6 ppb).  Further increase in
buffer strip width does not significantly decrease simulated exposures
– the EEC for the no drift simulation is 0.59 ppb. However, the levels
of concern for acute risk to fish and invertebrates are still exceeded,
except when the risk quotient is calculated using the EEC from the no
drift scenario and the LC50 for brook trout. Endangered species levels
of concern are exceeded for all simulations. These simulations assumed
the application was made on July 15 for control of the navel orangeworm.
Current labels also recommend azinphos methyl use for the peach twig
borer, and use for control of this insect occurs earlier in the season,
around the end of flowering. EECs for control peach twig borer would be
higher than those in this assessment.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Models  tc "a.	Aquatic Exposure Modeling " \l 4

	For Tier 2 surface-water assessments, two models are used in tandem.
PRZM simulates fate and transport on the agricultural field.  The
version of PRZM (Carsel et al., 1998) used was PRZM 3.12 beta, dated May
24, 2001.  The water body is simulated with EXAMS version 2.98, dated
July 18, 2002 (Burns, 1997).  Tier 2 simulations are run for multiple
(usually 30) years and the reported estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) are the concentrations that are expected once
every ten years based on the thirty years of daily values generated by
the simulation.  PRZM and EXAMS were run using the PE4 shell, dated May
14, 2003, which also summarizes the output.  Spray drift was simulated
using the AgDrift model version 2.01 dated May 24, 2001.  SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1  For air blast applications, buffer strips were modeled with
AgDrift in Tier I Orchard Airblast mode.

Management Practices

The current maximum label practice for application of azinphos methyl to
almonds is 2 lb a.i./acre with a single application per season. Aerial
application is prohibited, and a 25 ft buffer is required around all
water bodies on the current label. This use pattern has been simulated
using an application of 2  lb/acre applied on July 15 using spray blast
equipment (Table 1). As noted above, buffers of 100 ft, 500 ft and “no
drift” were assessed. The no spray drift simulation reflects the
contribution from runoff alone and the EECs that might occur when
application is a long distance from the water body, e.g. several
thousand feet.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	For air blast applications, buffer strips were
modeled with AgDrift in Tier I Orchard Airblast mode.  The generic
“orchard” was modeled, and the output value for the loading into the
standard pond was tripled, according to standard practice, in order to
reflect the upper 95% confidence bound on the drift.  The only
management practice that was varied was the buffer strip width. In
comparison, an AgDRIFT simulation with no buffer strip results in
estimated spray drift of 12.5%.

Table 1. Management practices simulated for azinphos methyl use on
almonds*.

Crop

App Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

Max. No. Apps.

App. Interval (days)

Buffer Width (ft)

App. Method

(% drift)

First App. Date

Label	2	1	NA	25	air blast (4.5%)	July 15

100 ft buffer	2	1	NA	100	air blast (0.9%)	July 15

500 ft buffer	2	1	NA	500	Air blast (0.2%)	July 15

“No drift”	2	1	NA	NA	no drift	July 15

* For all simulations, IPSCND, the disposition of foliar pesticide
residues on foliage at harvest was set to 1, so that the residues are
applied to the soil.

Scenarios

	The California almond scenario was used for this assessment. The
California almond scenario is in San Joaquin County, California and uses
weather data from Sacramento. The soil is a Manteca fine sandy loam.
This is the standard Tier 2 scenario for assessing risks from almonds.

Chemistry Input Parameters tc \l4 "i.         Chemistry Input Parameters

Azinphos methyl is an organophosphate insecticide used on a wide variety
of food and non-food crops.  Azinphos methyl environmental fate data
used for generating model parameters is listed in Table 2. The input
parameters for PRZM and EXAMS are in Table 3.  Descriptions of special
considerations used to select environmental fate parameters or to
generate modeling input values are described below.

Hydrolysis.  As noted above, measurements of the hydrolysis rates were
made at 30( C and 40( C rather than the standard 25(C. The Arrhenius
Rate Law was used to calculate the degradation rate by hydrolysis at
25(C for use in EXAMS.

Soil and Aquatic Metabolism.  Only one anaerobic and one aerobic soil
metabolism value were available for azinphos methyl.  No aquatic
metabolism data are currently available.  Current policy for generating
input parameters for PRZM 3 when only one value is available is to
multiply the half-life by three resulting in a PRZM input parameter for
aerobic soil degradation of 95.3 d.  In previous modeling for azinphos
methyl, the anaerobic soil metabolism value was used as input to PRZM
representing the degradation rate in the sub-surface horizons.  For this
set of simulations, the aerobic soil metabolism half-life was used for
all depths.  This assumption has no effect on the EECs.

Since no aquatic metabolism data were available, current policy is to
use the value of the corresponding half-life for aerobic soil metabolism
and multiply that value by 2 to represent aerobic aquatic metabolism.
This is done as there is usually some correspondence between soil and
aquatic metabolism rates and in the absence of aquatic data this is
judged to be a reasonable conservative surrogate. The aerobic aquatic
metabolism input parameters were multiplied by 2 again to estimate the
degradation rate in the pond sediment. The resulting half lives for
aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism are 190.8 and 381.6 d
respectively. In practice these values are of little importance as the
degradation in the water column will be dominated by hydrolysis.

Soil Water Partition Coefficients.  In previous modeling, a Koc value
based on Kf's was used in the simulations.  The method for generating
soil-water partition coefficient input values has changed substantially
from this in the new simulations.  In selecting a value for the
soil-water partition coefficient to use in the simulations, four issues
needed to be considered.  First, adsorption and desorption isotherms are
not equal, so it must be decided whether to use the adsorption or
desorption isotherm.  Current policy is to use the desorption values in
PRZM because the dominant process during a runoff event is desorption
and to use the adsorption isotherm in EXAMS as that it is the dominant
process in the pond.  Secondly, the data for each of the three soils
(both adsorption and desorption processes) were fitted to a Fruendlich
isotherm and the 1/n or "curvature" term in the equation was
significantly different than 1, indicating that concentration adsorbed
to soil was curvilinearly related to concentration in solution.
Unfortunately, PRZM and EXAMS only have a linear (Kd) partition model
for handling soil-water partitioning of pesticides.  For the desorption
isotherm, this was handled by calculating the partitioning between soil
and water at the maximum concentration it would be expected to occur in
each media.  While this method does not give the most accurate
soil-water partitioning of the pesticide over the range of the isotherm,
it should be most accurate near the application rate, where the greatest
portion of the runoff occurs.  For the calculated desorption Kd's for
PRZM 2, the soil concentration of 17.2 µg kg-soil-1 was used, which
corresponds to the concentration resulting from the application rate
being mixed into the top 1 cm of soil.  The soil water was content was
assumed to be 0.35 cm3-H2O ( cm-3-soil and the bulk density of the soil
was assumed to be 1.3 kg L-1.  The partitioning under these conditions
was used to calculate a Kd appropriate for this soil content.  Note that
for each soil, four different desorption experiments were conducted and
Fruendlich parameters were provided for each separate experiment. The
average of the four sets of parameters was used to calculate a single Kd
for the soil at the application rate rather than calculating four
different Kds being calculated and then averaged.

Finally, a Pearson's Correlation Analysis of the of the calculated Kd
with organic carbon content was used to calculate a Koc. for neither
adsorption nor desorption was there a significant correlation between
the calculated Kd's and organic carbon content, so the Kd value for the
silty clay soil (8.414 L (kg-1 for desorption and 7.55 L (kg-1 for
adsorption) was used.  Finally, the concentrations in the soil-water
partitioning study are only about 1 tenth the concentration of pesticide
that could be found in the soil at the application rate.  Hence, we are
extrapolating considerably beyond the range of the experimental data for
calculating the EEC. This usually results in substantial error.

Table 2. Environmental fate parameters for azinphos methyl.

Fate Parameter	Value	Source

Molecular Mass	317.32 g mol-1	OPP, 1986

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Rate Constant	2.17 x 10-2 d-1	MRID 29900

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Rate Constant	1.04x10-2 d-1	MRID 29900

Kd	7.6 L kg-soil-1 (sandy loam)	MRID 42959702

Solubility	25.10 mg L-1	OPP, 1986

Vapor Pressure	 2.2x10-7 torr 	OPP, 1986

Acidic Hydrolysis Rate Constant	4.78 L (mol-H+)-1 d-1	MRID 29899

Neutral Hydrolysis Constant	7.83 x 10-4 d-1	MRID 29899

Alkaline Hydrolysis Constant	82 L (mol-OH+)-1 d-1	MRID 29899

Aqueous Photolysis Constant	3.19 d	MRID 40297001

Washoff Fraction	0.937	Gunther et al., 1977

Foliar Degradation Rate Constant	7.2 d	see text

Foliar Washoff and Degradation.   Foliar dissipation is an important
process for estimating the EEC of azinphos methyl.  Data for foliar
washoff of azinphos methyl (Gunther et al., 1977) is not presented in a
manner that is most amenable to direct use in PRZM 2.  The measurement
for foliar washoff is 60% of the amount applied washed off in the first
0.33 cm of rainfall.  The PRZM foliar washoff parameter, FEXTRC, is the
amount of pesticide washed off in 1 cm of rainfall, expressed as a
fraction.  There is some indication (McDowell et al., 1984) that a
hyperbolic model (1/[a+bt]) best predicts the concentration profile with
washing volume of methyl parathion, a similar compound, in washoff, but
integration of the regression equations failed to provide meaningful
estimates of the percent washed off in 1 cm of rainfall (Values
calculated exceeded the initial concentration).  To obtain a meaningful,
if not particularly accurate or precise estimate of foliar washoff, the
following assumptions were made: first, that washoff rate was
proportional to the amount on the leaf (i.e. ∂[AM]/∂V = -k[AM],
where [AM] is the azinphos methyl concentration on the leaf, V is the
volume of runoff expressed as cm of precipitation and k is the washoff
rate constant).  The exponential removal model which was selected for
the first assumption was chosen over a linear model as there is some
indications that an exponential model better described the structure of
the data.  Based on the first assumption, the equation describing the
washoff fraction as a function of the precipitation amount, V, in 1 cm
is:

where W is the fraction remaining on the foliage.  The 40% remained
after 0.33 cm of precipitation allows calculation of a point estimate of
k as 2.78.  Using this value for k, the fraction washed off (1-W) with 1
cm of rainfall is 0.937.

For foliar degradation, 7 foliar half-lives measurements are available
(Lindquist and Krueger, 1975; Hoskins, 1962; Pree et al., 1976;
Winterlin et al., 1974, McDowell et al, 1984).   Assuming these values
are distributed normally, the value which represents the one tail upper
90% confidence limit of the mean is 9.8 d.

Table 3. Chemistry input parameters for Tier-II (PRZM/EXAMS) simulation
of azinphos methyl for aquatic assessment.

Input Parameter	Value	Justification	Quality

Molecular weight	317.32 g mol-1	calculated	excellent

Solubility	25.10 mg L-1	measured	very good

Hydrolysis	39.4 (pH 5)

37.5 (pH 7)

 6.6 (pH 9)	adjusted for temperature	excellent

Photolysis	3.19 d	measured

	Aerobic Soil Metabolism	95.4 d	single value x 3	fair

Water Column Metabolism	190.8 d	aerobic soil x 2	poor

Sediment Metabolism	381.6 d	water column x 2	poor

Foliar Degradation 	9.8 d	UCB90 on 7 values	good

Foliar Washoff Coefficient	0.937 cm-1	point estimate from 1 study	fair

Henry’s Law Constant	3.66 x 10-6 L atm mol-1	estimated from solubility
and vapor pressure	poor

Vapor Pressure	2.2 x 10-7 torr	good	good

Soil Water Partition Coefficient (Kd)	7.6 L kg-soil-1	lowest non-sand Kd
good

Results

For comparison purposes, a simulation from the previous assessment was
included (Table 4) which used the current label practice: 1 application
2 lb/acre applied with spray blast equipment with a 25 ft buffer. To
simulate the drift in this assessment, the “orchard” option in
AgDrift was chosen. This option represents the mean drift curve over all
the spray blast drift trials used to develop the drift curves for spray
blast simulation in AgDrift. They show a considerably reduced drift
loading compared to the sparse orchard. For example, for the 25 ft
buffer for orchards on the azinphos methyl label, the sparse orchard
results in 4.5% of the application rate into the standard pond while
drift while the drift using the “orchard” option is 2.8%, a 37%
reduction.

 μg L-1 -------------------------------------------------

25 ft buffer	3.1	2.9	2.2	1.4	1.0

100 ft buffer	1.0	0.94	0.72	0.45	0.34

500 ft buffer	0.6	0.56	0.44	0.28	0.22

No drift	0.59	0.55	0.43	0.27	0.20

Risk quotients based on EECs from the above simulations and toxicity
thresholds for several aquatic animals are presented in Table 5. The
acute risk level of concern is 0.5 for non-endangered species and 0.05
for endangered species. The level of concern for chronic risk is 1. More
detail on the toxicity data and levels of concern can be found in the
original ecological risk assessment for the Group 3 crops (D308568).

Table 5. Risk quotients for acute risk to selected aquatic species for
azinphos methyl use on almonds with various buffer widths around water
bodies. The acute EEC is the 1 in-10-year peak concentration. All levels
of concern are exceeded except for high risk for brook trout in the no
drift scenario.

Buffer Width	Acute EEC

(μg L-1)	Brook Trout

(LC50 = 1.2 μg L-1)	Northern Pike

(LC50 = 0.6 μg L-1)	Gammarus

(EC50 = 0.36 μg L-1)

25 ft	3.1 	2.5	5.1	8.6

100 ft	1.0 	1.2	1.7	2.8

500 ft	0.60 	0.5	1.0	1.7

No drift	0.59 	0.49	0.98	1.6

.

Table 6. Risk quotients for chronic risk to selected aquatic species for
azinphos methyl use on almonds with various buffer widths around water
bodies. The exposure endpoint is the 1-in-10-year 21-day mean
concentration for Daphnia chronic and 1-in-10-year 60-day mean
concentration for the rainbow trout chronic. Risk Quotients that exceed
levels of concern are in bold

Buffer Width	Chronic EECs (21 and 60 d)

μg L-1)	Rainbow Trout

(NOAEC = 0.44 μg L-1)	Daphnia

(NOAEC = 0.25 μg L-1)

25 ft	2.2 / 1.4	1.8	8.8

100 ft	0.72 / 0.45	1.0	2.9

500 ft	0.44 / 0.28	0.64	1.76

No drift	0.43 / 0.27	0.61	1.72

EECs are substantially reduced from the current listed label practice
with a 25 ft buffer to 500 ft buffer from a peak 1-in-10-year peak EEC
of 3.1 to 0.6 μg L-1. Even so, all acute risk quotients exceed the
endangered species level of concern, and all exceed the acute level of
concern except for brook trout in the no drift scenario (Table 5). All
scenarios exceed the chronic risk level of concern for freshwater
invertebrates (Table 6). The chronic freshwater fish LOC is exceeded for
25 and 100 ft buffer but not for 500 ft buffer or the no drift scenario.

It is important to note that these simulations were run using the
application date of July 15 which is consistent with the time periods
used for control of navel orange worm. Simulations done in response to
comments by the almond growers indicate that there is little difference
in EECs done in July and those for May and June, but they are
substantially reduced from those in March. March application is more
typical of the timing for control of peach twig borer, another pest
listed on the label for azinphos methyl use on almonds (D311127). The
simulations presented in this document represent the label practice if
peach twig borer was taken off the label and application timing was
restricted to that required to control navel orangeworm.

Literature Citations

Office of Pesticide Programs. 1986. Guidance for the Reregistration of
Pesticide Products Containing Azinphos-methyl as the Active Ingredient.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Issued
September, 1986.

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002. Interim Reregistation Eligibility
Decision for Azinphos methyl: Case No. 0235   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/azinphosmethyl_ired.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/azinphosmethyl_ired.pdf .

MRID 00029899. Wilkes, L.C., J. P. Wargo, and R. R. Gronberg. 1979.
Dissipation of Guthion in Buffered Aqueous Solution.  Analytical
Development Crop., Monument, Colorado. ADC Project 378-F, notebook
reference 79-R-126,127, Acc. No. 099216, Tab No. 67983.

MRID 00029887. M.F. Lenz. 1979. Soil Adsorption and Desorption of
Guthion.  Mobay Chemical Corp. April 11, 1979.  Accession No. 099216.
Tab No. 66848.

ༀ킄ሂĀ䀀&葞ː摧ӫ\

0

¸

Õ

Ö

÷

ø

ù

ý

Þ

ß

퀄ꀂ瀅䀈

葞ː葠ࡰ

<

摧桒a

摧桒a

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

愀Ĥ摧ӫ\

ã

ã

³

³

³

³

ssion No. 099216, Tab No 68030.

MRID 40297001. J. G. Morgan. The Aqueous Photolysis of
GUTHION-Phenyl-UL-14C. Report No. 94709. 14 July 1987. Accession No.
4029701.

D307567. Flaherty, Colleen and R. David Jones. 2005.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 Azinphos Methyl Insecticide: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of
Azinphos Methyl on Caneberries, Cranberries, Peaches, Potatoes, and
Southern Pine Seeds (Group 2 Uses). Internal EPA Memorandum to Diane
Isbell dated June 12, 2005.

D307568. Flaherty, Colleen and R. David Jones. 2005.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 Azinphos-methyl Insecticide: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of
Azinphos-methyl on Almonds, Apples, Blueberries (Low- and Highbush),
Brussels Sprouts, Cherries (Sweet and Tart), Grapes, Nursery Stock,
Parsley, Pears, Pistachios, and Walnuts. Internal EPA Memorandum to
Diane Isbell dated September 29, 2005.

D311127. Flaherty, Colleen and R. David Jones. 2006. Azinphos
Methyl—OPP Response to Stakeholder Comments Regarding Ecological Risks
for the Proposed Decision for “Group 3” Uses. Internal EPA
Memorandum to Katie Hall, in preparation.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Appendix

Aquatic Exposure Model Input File Names

Input files archived for azinphos methyl applied to almonds.

File Name

Date

Description

W23232.dvf

weather for CA almonds scenarios (Sacramento, CA)

Caalmond0C.txt

June 17, 2004

PE4 scenario file for CA almonds, unirrigated

Pond298.exv

August 29, 2002

standard pond scenario for exams

PE4 simulation input files (.PZR extension)

058001 CA almond 05

September 14, 2006

CA almonds, spray blast, 25 ft buffer, 7/15 app

058001 CA almond 06

October 24, 2006

CA almonds, spray blast, 100 ft buffer, 7/15 app

058001 CA almond 07

October 24, 2006

CA almonds, 500 ft buffer, 7/15 app

058001 CA almond 08

October 24, 2006

CA almonds, no drift

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

PART I: Information Collection Request

This worksheet replaces the previous OMB 83-I form for Information Collection Requests (ICRs).  This worksheet is intended to help ICR preparers transition between the paper 83-I system and use of the Information Collection Request, Review and Approval System (ICRAS) for submitting ICRs to OMB.  This form is not intended for submission to OMB.  For additional guidance on completing this worksheet, please see EPA’s ICR website at   HYPERLINK "http://intranet.epa.gov/icrintra/"  http://intranet.epa.gov/icrintra/ .  There you will find the following documents: OEI’s ICRAS Instructions (under Prepare ICR Package tab) and OMB’s ROCIS IC Q&A (located under the Download Guidance tab), as well as the contact information for your appropriate ICR desk officer.

1. Agency/Subagency originating request:   FORMTEXT  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Region 10

2. Title:   FORMTEXT  Federal Implementation Plans Under The Clean Air Act For Indian Reservations In Idaho, Oregon, And Washington

3. Type of Information Collection (check one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    New collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Extension of a currently approved collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Revision of a currently approved collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Nonmaterial or non-substantive change to a currently approved collection

      (formerly called the 83-C)	4. OMB Control Number (OCN):   FORMTEXT  2060-0558

     EPA ICR Number:   FORMTEXT  2020.06

5. Type of review requested (check one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Regular

  FORMCHECKBOX    Emergency – Approval Requested by:   FORMTEXT         (mm/dd/yy)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Delegated

(If emergency, please submit justification as a separate attachment)	6. Requested expiration date (check one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Three years from approval date

  FORMCHECKBOX    Six Months from approval date (maximum for emergency)

8.  Citations for Authorizing Statute(s):

 a.   FORMCHECKBOX    Public Law

           Name of law:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:    FORMTEXT          -    FORMTEXT          Sec    FORMTEXT

 b.   FORMCHECKBOX    US Code

           Name of Law:   FORMTEXT  Clean Air Act

           Citation:    FORMTEXT  42  USC:   FORMTEXT  7401 to 7671q

 c.   FORMCHECKBOX    Executive Order

           Name/Subject of EO:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:  EO    FORMTEXT

d.   FORMCHECKBOX    Statute at Large

           Name of Statute:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:    FORMTEXT          Stat    FORMTEXT

9. Associated Rulemaking Information (For Rule Related ICRs Only):

  RIN:    FORMTEXT         -   FORMTEXT                                        SAN:   FORMTEXT                                                               Stage of Rulemaking (check one):

                                                                                FORMCHECKBOX    Proposed Rule

                                                                                FORMCHECKBOX    Interim Final or Final Rule

For a Proposed Rule, OMB will not consider an ICR complete until the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been published.  OEI will enter this information into ICRAS.

For ICRs associated with Interim Finals that are not significant under EO 12866, please attach a draft of the rule.

10. Federal Register Notices & Comments:

Federal Register Citation (For Non-Rule Related and Renewal ICRs Only):

60-day Notice:    Volume:   FORMTEXT  78     Page number:   FORMTEXT  14704     Publication Date:   FORMTEXT  03/17/2014

(30-day Notice:    Volume:             Page number:               Publication Date  	  	 )

Did the Agency receive public comments on this ICR?     FORMCHECKBOX   Yes    FORMCHECKBOX   No

Unless submitted as an Emergency ICR or Associated with a Rulemaking, OMB will not consider an ICR complete until the 30-day notice

has been published.  The second notice will be published following OEI review and approval of the ICR. OEI will enter this information into ICRAS.

11. Annual Cost to Federal Government:      FORMTEXT  693576.00

12.  Does this ICR contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods?      FORMCHECKBOX    Yes      FORMCHECKBOX    No

(If Yes, please attach Supporting Statement, Part B)

13. Is a Privacy Impact Assessment required by the E-Government Act of 2002 for this ICR?      FORMCHECKBOX    Yes      FORMCHECKBOX    No

(A PIA is needed for a new, electronic collection of information.)

14. Agency Contact:

       Name:    FORMTEXT  Justin A Spenillo

       Phone:   FORMTEXT<PHONE_NUMBER>

       E-mail:   FORMTEXT<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

15. Change in Burden:

A.  Program Change Due to a New Statute

If change in burden is a Program Change Due to a New Statute, identify the Citations for the New Statutory Requirements:

a.   FORMCHECKBOX    Public Law

           Citation:    FORMTEXT          -    FORMTEXT          Sec    FORMTEXT

 b.   FORMCHECKBOX    US Code

           Name of Law:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:    FORMTEXT         USC:   FORMTEXT

 c.   FORMCHECKBOX    Executive Order

           Name/Subject of EO:   FORMTEXT

           Citation:  EO    FORMTEXT

d.   FORMCHECKBOX    Statute at Large

  Name of Statute:   FORMTEXT

  Citation:    FORMTEXT          Stat    FORMTEXT

B. Program Change Due to Agency Discretion

If change in burden is a  DECREASE because of a Program Change due to Agency Discretion, please categorize the decrease (select one):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Cutting Redundancy

  FORMCHECKBOX    Using Information Technology

  FORMCHECKBOX    Changing Regulations

  FORMCHECKBOX    Changing Forms

  FORMCHECKBOX    Miscellaneous Actions

If change in burden is a  INCREASE because of a Program Change due to Agency Discretion, please categorize the increase (select one):

           FORMCHECKBOX   Changing Regulations

           FORMCHECKBOX   Miscellaneous Actions

C. Explanation of Change in Burden

Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported; that is, provide a short statement addressing how the reduction in burden was achieved or why the increase in burden occurred. (If you need more space, provide a short summary here and elaborate in the Supporting Statement.)

  FORMTEXT  There is a decrease of 1,176 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.  This decrease is the result of a number of changes.  It  reflects adjustments to the burden estimates for this collection based on consultation input, supersedence of the provisions of one rule (49.139), and experience with implementing the FARR.  Some components of the burden estimates decreased and some components increased (but by a lesser amount overall), resulting in an estimate that is lower than the previous estimate. The decreases were primarily associated with a decrease in the burden estimate for future delegations under the delegation rule (49.122), a decrease in the estimate of the number of sources for the sulfur in fuels rule (49.130) and an estimate that no additional sources will voluntarily apply for a non-Title V operating permit under the operating permits rule (49.139).

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

Part III: Information Collection Request Completeness Check

Complete this checklist prior to submitting the information collection package to the Clearance Officer.  The Clearance Officer will use the information contained in this checklist, along with other information, to certify the information collection prior to submission to OMB.

The supporting statement (check all that apply):

  FORMCHECKBOX    Identifies the statute or regulation authorizing the collection of the information

  FORMCHECKBOX    Describes efforts taken to avoid the collection of similar information already available, or collected under a different information collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Describes, if applicable, methods to minimize the burden on small businesses or other small entities

  FORMCHECKBOX    Is written using plain English, and all terminology used is unambiguous and understandable to those required to respond to the collection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Indicates how long records specified in the collection are to be maintained by persons required to maintain the records

  FORMCHECKBOX    Has dedicated resources to ensure the proper use and processing of the information being collected to enhance (as appropriate) the value of the information to agencies and the public.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Indicates the use of a statistical survey method (if applicable) that produces valid and reliable results while minimizing undue burden.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Describes the intended use of information technology to reduce burden and where possible avoid unnecessary system and technology costs.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION WORKSHEET

Part IV: Certification

Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with'

5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: 	The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3), appear at the end of the instructions.  The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

	(a)  It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

	(b)  It avoids unnecessary duplication;

	(c)  It reduces burden on small entities;

	(d)  It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

	(e)  Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

	(f)  It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

	(g)  It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3):

		(I)  Why the information is being collected’

		(ii)  Use of information;

		(iii)  Burden estimate;

		(iv)  Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

		(v)   Nature and extent of confidentiality; and

		(vi)  Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

	(h)  It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management

                          and use of the information to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

	(I)  It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and

	(j)  It makes appropriate use of information technology.

Signature of Program Official

  FORMTEXT  Rick Albright, Director

  FORMTEXT  Office of Air Waste and Toxics

  FORMTEXT  Region 10 	Date

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Signature of Senior Official or designee

Oscar Morales, Director

                                                                                Collection Strategies  Division

                                                                                Office of Environmental Information	Date

5 CFR 1320.9 reads “As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify (and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information --

     “(a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

     “(b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

     “(c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C § 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:

“(1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond;

“(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof;

“(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

      “(d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

P

5

6

O

P

Q

S

y

z

{

…

瑩ច๣瑹䓄Ǹ…

†

‡

µ

¶

»

¼

¿

Å

Æ

Ç

Ñ

Ò

Ó

¼

q

’

Ì

Í

ù

#

$

%

o

p

p

w

‘

’

”

§

¯

°

º

»

¼

Å

Æ

Ë

Ì

Í

Ñ

á

â

ã

í

 í

î

ï

õ

ö

÷

ú

û

ü

jV

摥ច๣k欀칤

jÇ

Ø	@

íÜÎ½®œ‹yk‹\J<‹*\# hl

# hl

N¶

N¶

옍

N¶

$

N¶

摧㚙Ä

愀Ȥ摧㚙Ä

stent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

       “(f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

       “(g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8(b)(3); [see below]

       “(h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of  the information in a manner  which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

       “(I)  uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and

       “(j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public.”

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) requires that each collection of information:

        “(3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

“(I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of  the agency;

“(ii) the way such information is planned to be and/or has been used to further the proper performance of  the functions of the agency;

“(iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of  the average burden of  the collection (together  with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of  this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden);

“(iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit (citing authority), or mandatory (citing authority);

	“(v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any (citing authority); and

“(vi) the fact that any 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.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

Revised 1/30/2007


[Federal Register: October 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 61799-61800]
[DOCID:fr26oc05-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ES06-1-000]

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; Notice of Application

October 18, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2005, PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation, submitted an application pursuant to section 204 of the
Federal Power Act seeking authorization to issue and reissue, and to
have outstanding at any one time, short-term indebtedness in an

aggregate face amount not to exceed $600 million.
    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 on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 4, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5913 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13668-13669]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0934; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-29]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Georgetown, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Georgetown, TX, to
accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) at Georgetown Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 3, 2010. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 18, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Georgetown
Municipal Airport, Georgetown, TX (74

FR 67142) Docket No. FAA-2009-0934. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T
signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate SIAPs at Georgetown Municipal Airport,
Georgetown, TX. Adjustment of the geographic coordinates will be made
in accordance with the FAA's National Aeronautical Charting Office.
This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Georgetown Municipal Airport,
Georgetown, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Georgetown, TX [Amended]

Georgetown Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]40'44'' N., long. 97[deg]40'46'' W.)
Georgetown NDB
    (Lat. 30[deg]41'04'' N., long. 97[deg]40'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Georgetown Municipal Airport, and within
2.5 miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the Georgetown NDB
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.4 miles north of the
airport, and within 2.2 miles each side of the 301[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.7 miles
northwest of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the
003[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius
to 10.3 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 11, 2010.
Roger M. Trevino,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-6160 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38046]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting
related to the transmission planning activities of the Southern Company
Services, Inc.:

2012 Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning Process (SERTP) 2nd
Quarter Preliminary Expansion Plan Meeting

June 27, 2012, 10 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at:

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Corporate Headquarters Atlanta,
Georgia.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceeding:

Docket No. ER12-337, Mississippi Power Company.

    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 20, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15519 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37895]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-808-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: 20120618 Miscellaneous Filing to be effective 7/19/
2012.
    Filed Date: 6/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120618-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-809-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Modify ROFR Timeline to be effective 7/19/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120618-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-810-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska Gas Storage Negotiated Rate to be effective 6/
18/2012.
    Filed Date: 6/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120618-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-811-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Tenaska--Negotiated Rate Filing to be effective 6/18/
2012.
    Filed Date: 6/18/12.
    Accession Number: 20120618-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/12.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: June 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15404 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P