August 21, 2003 1 HFE 7000 Exposure During Use as a Cleaning Solvent HFE 7000 has previously been approved for use as a refrigerant and as an aerosol solvent. For the aerosol solvent end use, HFE 7000 was analyzed for two uses: 1) as a circuit board cleaner sprayed along an assembly line or under a hood in a well ventilated factory and 2) as a mechanical parts cleaner in a poorly ventilated shop. For each of the scenarios, the largest exposure concentration was estimated to be 8.2 ppm, which was significantly lower than the recommended 8 hour AEL of 75 ppm.

Approval is being sought for the use of HFE 7000 as a cleaning solvent in precision cleaning and electronics cleaning processes in addition to use as an aerosol solvent. Cleaning solvents may be used in these applications using vapor degreasing or cold cleaning methods. In the case of a vapor degreaser, exposures are limited by likely work place exposure controls. 1 Because aerosols are volatilized, one might expect higher emissions from aerosol exposure than from exposure to solvent used in industrial cleaning equipment. However, because aerosol use results in intermittent exposure while use in industrial cleaning equipment results in continuous exposure, further analysis of exposure is warranted for use of solvents in industrial cleaning equipment.

A risk screen prepared for a related compound ( HFE 7100) reports actual data for occupational exposures ( provided by the submitter). The average 8 hour time weighted exposures are reported in Table 1 for three separate scenarios that could take place during vapor degreaser use. The scenario that is most applicable to this analysis is " exposure in the operator zone." The occupational exposure level ( i. e., 23 ppm) for this scenario is below the AEL for HFE 7000.

Table 1: Occupational Exposure to HFE 7100 during Solvent Cleaning Operations Test Scenario Time Period of Exposure Occupational Exposure ( mg/ m3) Occupational Exposure ( ppm)

Exposure at lip of Machine 8 hour time weighted average ( TWA) 3,384 331 Exposure in operator zone 8 hour TWA 235 23 Exposure during a spill 15 minute TWA 4,090 400 Note: When the HFE 7100 risk screen was written, HFE 7100 had an occupational exposure limit of 600 ppm set by the manufacturer. Since then, the AIHA has issued a WEEL of 750 ppm for HFE 7100. The value reported for exposure during a spill is not an 8 hour TWA. According to the manufacturer, the highest short term ( acute) exposure to HFE 7100 is less than 400 ppm during routine operations or in the case of a moderate spill.

1 For cold cleaning applications, exposures may be higher depending on the type of work place environment ( controlled vs. uncontrolled emissions). August 21, 2003 2 Because the vapor pressure of HFE 7100 is less than half that of HFE 7000 ( 200 mm Hg vs. 484 mm Hg), an analog method presented in the background document should be adopted to more precisely determine the occupational exposure of HFE 7000. For the " exposure in the operator zone", the occupational exposure of HFE 7000 can be estimated at 70 ppm using the equation below and the HFE 7100 exposure data:

C ( substitute) = C ( analog) * P ( substitute) P ( analog)

Where: C ( substitute) = estimated concentration for the substitute, in mg/ m3 C ( analog) = actual exposure concentration for the analog, in mg/ m3 P ( substitute) = vapor pressure of substitute, in mm Hg P ( analog) = vapor pressure of analog, in mm Hg Using this equation, the following exposures are projected:

Table 2: Projected Occupational Exposure to HFE 7000 during Solvent Cleaning Operations Test Scenario Time Period of Exposure Occupational Exposure ( mg/ m3) Occupational Exposure ( ppm)

Exposure at lip of Machine 8 hour time weighted average ( TWA) 8,188 1,001 Exposure in operator zone 8 hour TWA 573 70 Exposure during a spill 15 minute TWA 9,898 1,210 Note: The exposure estimated for a spill represents a short term acute exposure.

Exposure in the operator zone is the most common scenario and the scenario that best represents typical long term exposure in the workplace. For exposure in the operator zone, the occupational exposure level is below HFE 7000' s AEL. However, because there is a safety margin of roughly 7 percent between the occupational exposure in the operator zone and HFE 7000' s AEL, precautions should be taken to reduce the occupational exposure. To ensure that occupational exposure does not exceed the AEL of 75 ppm, the following exposure controls can be employed. 2 1) Install proper ventilation; 2) Always use covers on cold cleaning and vapor degreasing equipment when not in use; 3) Increase freeboard height and/ or freeboard condensers on the vapor degreaser for maximum condensation; 4) Follow industrial hygiene practices and train workers to follow practices; 5) Place signs in the work place warning workers of the symptoms that may incur from over exposure to HFE 7000; 6) Provide training in the proper use of cold cleaning and vapor degreasing equipment.

2 It is particularly important that these measures be in place for cold cleaning applications. Use of HFE 7000 for hand wiping should be discouraged. August 21, 2003 3 Exposure at the lip of the machine is a conservative scenario for short term exposure that would exceed exposures normally experienced by a worker over the course of a workday. Workers would move to the lip of a machine while adding or removing workloads in industrial cleaning equipment, but typically would not remain at the lip of the machine all day. Thus, the exposures resulting from this scenario are more reasonably compared to an emergency guidance level ( EGL) 3 than to a STEL or an 8 hour AEL. These exposures are expected to be very high and very short in duration, and thus are not applicable to an AEL or a 15 minute STEL.

The EGL should be informed by acute toxicity of the compound, identified in animal tests. Although no acute studies with this compound were identified, a sub acute toxicity assay performed with HFE 7000 did not reveal any clinical effects or mortality at concentrations as high as 30,000 ppm following 20 days of exposure ( Arts 1999). Therefore, the exposure concentration in rats required to induce acute effects exceeds this concentration. Thus, the recommended EGL for HFE 7000 is 3,000 ppm based on one tenth of the acute toxicity NOAEL of 30,000 ppm. This value is a conservative exposure limit, as it is essentially based on a true NOAEL for rodents with an uncertainty factor of 10 applied for extrapolation to humans. As no clinical effects in rodents were observed even after 20 days of exposure to the compound at 30,000 ppm, it is unlikely that a one time exposure to 3,000 ppm would induce acute toxicity in humans. The calculation of this EGL is similar to calculations used to develop other exposure limits such as AELs. A calculation to account for period of exposure is unnecessary because the value is for immediate effects that do not necessarily require a particular period of time to develop. No additional application of uncertainty factors is required because the value is developed from a true ( and likely conservative) NOAEL.

Additionally, for the worst case scenario, a spill situation, the exposure should be compared to an EGL instead of a STEL because spills represent very infrequent events that involve much higher exposure concentrations than those situations that are typically compared to a STEL. Furthermore, STELs can be exceeded within a given day, as long as the daily average concentration does not exceed the overall exposure limit ( AEL). If at all possible, the EGL should not be exceeded. Spills also should be cleaned up as quickly as is practical. Hence, using the analog method, concentrations of HFE 7000 experienced during a spill would be 1,210 ppm, well below the EGL of 3,000 ppm.

Further, because other cleaning solvents have lower exposure limits in place ( e. g., enforceable OSHA PELs for chlorinated solvents set at 50 ppm or 25 ppm) that are consistently met in the workplace, it is believed that a 25 ppm work place level can be met for other solvent cleaners ( in this case, HFE 7000) given the use of proper controls, as described above ( EPA 1994). This further supports the conclusion that exposures can be maintained below the AEL for HFE 7000, particularly if proper industrial hygiene is practiced in the work place.

3 The EGL is based on 0.1 times the acute NOAEL. August 21, 2003 4 References:

Arts JH, Kuper CF, and Muijser H. ( 1999). A sub acute ( 30 day) inhalation toxicity study, including a recovery study, with T 6903 in rats. TNO Report No. V99.566. TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, The Netherlands.

EPA 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone depleting Substances: Solvent Cleaning. Stratospheric Protection Division. March 1994.

29 CFR 1910.1000, OSHA standards for exposure to air contaminants.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15400-15405]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6229]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66551; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Complex Order Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols

March 9, 2012.
    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 March 1, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I of the Exchange's Fee
Schedule titled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols,'' by amending the transaction fees and rebates for
Complex Orders and proposing a new rebate.
    The Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on March
1, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change will increase certain Complex Order \3\
rebates, create a new rebate and also increase certain fees. The
proposed changes will enable the Exchange to continue to reward market
participants that add liquidity to the Exchange and allow the Exchange
to compete more effectively respecting Complex Orders. The Complex
Order fees and rebates being amended appear in Section I of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080,
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \4\ The Select Symbols are listed in Section I of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend the Customer Rebate for Adding
Liquidity, (2) create a new Rebate for Removing Liquidity, (3) amend
the Fee for Removing Liquidity for all participants that are assessed
such a fee, and (4) create a volume tier for certain

market participants that transact significant volumes of Complex Orders
on the Exchange. Currently, the Exchange's Complex Order fees and
rebates are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Directed
                                                             Customer       participant    Market maker        Firm        Broker-dealer   Professional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebate for Adding Liquidity.............................           $0.30           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
Fee for Adding Liquidity................................            0.00            0.10            0.10            0.20            0.20            0.20
Fee for Removing Liquidity..............................            0.00            0.30            0.32            0.35            0.35            0.35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange is amending the Customer Complex Order Rebate
for Adding Liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase
the Customer Complex Order Rebate to Add Liquidity from $0.30 per
contract to $0.32 per contract to further incentivize market
participants to route Customer Complex Orders to the Exchange.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to create a new Customer Complex
Order rebate to attract additional Customer Complex Orders to the
Exchange. The new rebate, entitled ``Rebate for Removing Liquidity,''
will pay a rebate of $0.06 per contract for each contract of liquidity
removed by an order designated as a Customer Complex Order. The
Exchange currently pays no rebate and assesses no fee for removing
Customer Complex Order liquidity. The Exchange will pay no rebate for
other market participants removing Complex Order liquidity. This is
similar to the existing Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity where
the Exchange offers a rebate only with respect to Customer Complex
Orders. The Exchange believes that increasing the Customer Complex
Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity and creating a new Customer Rebate
for Removing Liquidity will incentivize market participants to transact
Customer Complex Orders on the Exchange.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to increase the Complex Order Fees for
Removing Liquidity for the Directed Participant,\5\ Market Maker,\6\
Firm, Broker-Dealer and Professional\7\ categories. The fee for
Directed Participant transactions would increase from $0.30 to $0.32
per contract; the fee for Market Makers would increase from $0.32 to
$0.37 per contract; the fee for Firms would increase from $0.35 to
$0.38 per contract; the fee for Broker-Dealers would increase from
$0.35 to $0.38 per contract; and the fee for Professionals would
increase from $0.35 to $0.38 per contract. As a result, the new Complex
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity would be as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Directed Participant'' applies to transactions
for the account of a Specialist, Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'') or
Remote Streaming Quote Trader (``RSQT'') resulting from a Customer
order that is (1) directed to it by an order flow provider, and (2)
executed by it electronically on Phlx XL II.
    \6\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Specialists (see Rule 1020) and
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') (Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii),
which includes SQTs (see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and RSQTs (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)).
    \7\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Directed
                                                        Customer       participant      Market maker         Firm        Broker-dealer     Professional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee for removing liquidity........................           $0.00            $0.32            $0.37            $0.38            $0.38            $0.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange will provide a new volume incentive to Market
Makers. The Exchange has four categories of market makers:
Specialists,\8\ ROTs,\9\ SQTs \10\and RSQTs.\11\ The Exchange proposes
to offer a volume incentive to Market Makers that execute more than
25,000 contracts per day in a month of Complex Orders, either adding or
removing liquidity, in Select Symbols. Market Makers that meet the
aforementioned volume criteria will receive a $0.01 per contract
reduction of both the Directed Participant and Market Maker Complex
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity, as applicable, on all of their
transactions for the month. For example, assume Market Maker ABCD
executes 30,000 contracts per day of Complex Orders, including 5,000
contracts of Complex Orders that would be assessed the Directed
Participant fee and 5,000 contracts per day of Complex Orders that
would be assessed the Market Maker fee. In that case, Market Maker
ABCD's Directed Participant Complex Orders transactions in the month
would be assessed a Directed Participant Fee for Removing Liquidity of
$0.31 per contract instead of the new $0.32 per contract, and Market
Maker ACBD's Market Maker Complex Orders would be assessed a Market
Maker Fee of $0.36 per contract instead of the new $0.37 per contract.
For the purposes of the $0.01 reduction in the aforementioned fees, the
Exchange also proposes to aggregate the trading activity of Market
Makers where there is at least 75% common ownership between member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \9\ A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT ROT, which by
definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. A Registered Option Trader is
defined in Rule 1014(b) as a regular member of the Exchange located
on the trading floor who has received permission from the Exchange
to trade in options for his own account. See Rule 1014 (b)(i) and
(ii).
    \10\ An SQT is defined in Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has
received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option
quotations electronically in options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \11\ An RSQT is defined in Rule in 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that
is a member or member organization with no physical trading floor
presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate
and submit option quotations electronically in options to which such
RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing any amendments to Parts A or C of
Section I of the Fee Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and

other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable rebates among Exchange members
and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Rebates
    Customer Complex Orders are becoming an increasingly important
segment of options trading. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable
to increase the current Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding
Liquidity to $0.32 per contract and create a new Customer Complex Order
Rebate for Removing Liquidity of $0.06 per contract, because the
Exchange seeks to incentivize market participants to direct and
transact a greater number of Customer Complex Orders at the Exchange.
Creating these incentives and attracting Customer Complex Orders to the
Exchange, in turn, benefits all market participants through increased
liquidity at the Exchange. A higher percentage of Customer Complex
Orders leads to increased Complex Order auctions and better
opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to only offer rebates to Customers and not
other market participants. Customer Complex Order flow brings unique
benefits to the marketplace in terms of liquidity and order
interaction. It is an important Exchange function to provide an
opportunity to all market participants to trade against Customer
Complex Orders. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to increase the current Customer Complex Order
Rebate for Adding Liquidity to $0.32 per contract and create a new
Customer Complex Order Rebate for Removing Liquidity of $0.06 per
contract, because the Exchange will uniformly pay these rebates to all
Customer orders from any member organization.
Fee for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the Complex
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity for Directed Participants, Market
Makers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals so that the Exchange
can offer increased rebates to Customers. As previously noted, the
Exchange is proposing to increase the Customer Complex Order Rebate for
Adding Liquidity and offer a new Customer Complex Order Rebate for
Removing Liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to increase the Complex Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity for Directed Participants, Market Makers, Firms, Broker-
Dealers and Professionals because, the Exchange is increasing these
fees for all market participants, except Customers who are not assessed
a fee, to position itself to offer greater Customer Complex Order
rebates. The Exchange is consistently assessing lower Complex Order
Fees for Removing Liquidity to Directed Participants and Market Makers
as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals, because of the
requisite quoting obligations applicable to Market Makers. Market
Makers \14\ have burdensome quoting obligations to the market which do
not apply to Firms, Professionals and Broker-Dealers. Also, Market
Makers that receive Directed Orders \15\ have higher quoting
obligations compared to other Market Makers and therefore are assessed
a lower fee when they transact with a Customer order that was directed
to them for execution as compared to Market Makers. Firms, Broker-
Dealers and Professionals are being assessed the same $0.38 per
contract fees. Customers are not assessed a Fee for Removing Liquidity,
as is the case on competing exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \15\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \16\ See the Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated's
(``CBOE'') Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed Complex Order Fees for Removing
Liquidity for Directed Participant transactions as compared to Market
Maker transactions, the Exchange provides a deeper analysis below and
its basis for proposing a $0.32 per contract Complex Order Directed
Participant Fee for Removing Liquidity and a $0.37 per contract Complex
Order Market Maker Fee for Removing Liquidity. In summary, the
Exchange's Fees for Removing Liquidity, for both Single contra-side and
Complex Order transactions, for the Directed Participant categories are
two cents lower than the Fees for Removing Liquidity for the Market
Maker categories.\17\ As explained above, Market Makers that receive
Directed Orders have higher quoting obligations as compared to other
Market Makers and therefore are assessed a lower fee. The fee
differentials today reflect the additional obligation of a Market Maker
that accepts directed orders when compared to a Market Maker that does
not accept directed orders for both Single contra-side and Complex
Order transactions. The Exchange is now proposing to increase the
differential between the Directed Participant and Market Maker
transaction fees from $0.02 per contract to $0.05 per contract for
Complex Order transactions to also reflect the increased costs that are
incurred by such Market Makers that enter into order flow arrangements
at a cost and without the benefit of a guaranteed allocation. Market
Makers that accept Directed Orders transacting Single contra-side
orders today are entitled to a guaranteed allocation which is why the
Exchange is distinguishing between these types of orders in assessing
fees between the Market Maker and Directed Participant categories. The
Exchange will discuss below its rationale for why the proposal is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
believes that in order to attract Customer Complex Orders in an
intensely competitive environment it must continue to adjust its fees
and rebates, which benefits all market participants for the good of
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Today, the Exchange assesses Directed Participants a fee of
$0.36 per contract and Market Makers a fee of $0.38 per contract for
Single contra-side transactions and the Exchange assesses Directed
Participants a fee of $0.30 per contract and Market Makers a fee of
$0.32 per contract for Complex Order transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Directed Participants and Market Makers Categories
    Specialists, ROTs, SQTs and RSQTs are Market Makers. Such Market
Makers may also be categorized as Directed Participants when such
Market Makers execute against a Customer order directed to that Market
Maker for execution by an Order Flow Provider (``OFP'').\18\ For
example, Market Maker A is assessed the Directed Participant category
fee for trading against a Customer order directed to it for execution
by an OFP. Market Maker A is not assessed the Directed Participant
category fee for executing a Customer order directed to different
Market Maker, but rather is assessed the Market Maker category fee.\19\
It is important to note that a Market Maker, at the time of the trade,
is unaware of the identity of the contra-party to the trade. In other
words, it is only sometime after the trade occurs that the Market Maker
learns whether the Market Maker or Directed Participant fees will be
assessed on a particular transaction.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The term ``Order Flow Provider'' (``OFP'') means any member
or member organization that submits, as agent, orders to the
Exchange. See Rule 1080(l)(i)(B).
    \19\ Neither a Market Maker nor a Directed Participant is
entitled to a rebate for transacting a Customer Complex Order today.
    \20\ This distinction holds true today for Market Makers and
Directed Participants executing either Single contra-side
transactions (Part A of Section I of the Fee Schedule) or Complex
Orders (Part B of Section of the Fee Schedule). When a Single
contra-side transaction is executed against the individual
components of a Complex Order, the Single contra-side part of the
order will be subject to the fees in Part A of the Fee Schedule and
the individual components will be subject to the fees in Part B.

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

    The proposed amendments to the Fees for Removing Liquidity apply
only to Complex Orders.\21\ Market Makers receive no allocation
guarantee when a Customer Complex Order is directed to them by an OFP
and the order is executed.\22\ Also, only Customer Complex Order flow
which is directed to a Market Maker by an OFP and is executed by that
particular Market Maker is eligible for the Directed Participant fees
for Complex Orders.\23\ When a Market Maker executes against a Customer
Complex Order the Market Maker may do so by responding to an
auction,\24\ executing against an order on the Complex Order Book
(``CBOOK''), or sweeping a resting Customer Complex Order.\25\ The
Customer Complex Order may also be executed against existing quote and
or limit orders on the limit order book for the individual components
of the Complex Order.\26\ In each of these cases, the order will trade
based on the best price or prices available pursuant to Exchange
Rules.\27\ Therefore, in order to enjoy the benefits of trading against
a directed Complex Customer order by receiving a lower transaction fee
(the Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity),
the transaction must: (i) Occur at the best price; and (ii) be
directed, by an OFP, to the particular Market Maker that executed the
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend the fees in Section
I, Part A applicable to Single contra-side transactions.
    \22\ Complex Orders can be distinguished from Single contra-side
transactions with respect to allocation guarantees applicable to
Directed Specialists, Directed ROTs, Directed SQTs and Directed
RSQTs pursuant to Rule 1014(g)(viii). Directed Specialists, Directed
ROTs, Directed SQTs and Directed RSQTs are guaranteed a 40%
allocation with respect to Single contra-side transactions eligible
as a Directed Order.
    \23\ All other types of directed non-Customer order flow is not
eligible for Directed Participant pricing.
    \24\ The Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA'') is the auction
for eligible Complex Orders. See Rule 1080, Commentary .08.
    \25\ A COLA Sweep is when a Phlx XL participant bids and/or
offers on either or both sides of the market during the COLA Timer
(a timing mechanism which is a counting period not to exceed 5
seconds) by submitting one or more bids or offers that improve the
cPPBO (the best net debit or credit price for a Complex Order
Strategy based on the PBBO for individual components of such Complex
Order Strategy). See Rule 1080, Commentary .08.
    \26\ In this scenario the Customer order is ``legged'' against
interest present in the disseminated market.
    \27\ See Rule 1080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, on the Exchange, an average of 14.5% of Customer Complex
directed orders trade with the Market Maker to which they are
directed.\28\ All market participants may compete equally for Customer
Complex Order executions, even if that Customer Complex Order is
directed to a specific Market Maker. All Market Makers have the ability
to incentivize an OFP to direct or preference an order if they desire
to enter into, for example, a payment for order flow arrangement with
an OFP. A Market Maker that pays for such Customer Complex Order flow
cannot control whether it executes an order directed to it, because
that Market Maker must compete equally against other market
participants and as previously stated must be at the best price. While
all market participants enjoy the benefits of the liquidity that such
order flow brings to the market, not all market participants incur the
additional expense of paying an OFP for such order flow. The Exchange
believes that this additional expense should be considered in assessing
fees to Market Makers that attract directed order flow to the Exchange
for the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This statistic is based on Customer Complex Order data from
September 2011 to January 2012 and ranges from (7.2% to 17.94%).
During this period, Customer Complex Orders received by the Exchange
were directed on average at least 95% of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Market Maker that executes a Customer Complex Order on a non-
directed basis pays a fee of $0.32 per contract today (Market Maker
Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity). A Market Maker that executes
a Customer Complex Order on a directed basis pays a fee of $0.30 per
contract today (Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing
Liquidity) plus the additional cost associated with the order flow. The
Exchange believes that the Customer Complex Order rebates may partially
compensate Market Makers for payments they owe to the OFP for the
Customer order flow.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to raise the Market Maker Complex Order Fee for Removing
Liquidity from $0.32 to $0.37 per contract and raise the Directed
Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity from $0.30 to
$0.32 per contract. Generally, a Market Maker will be assessed the
Market Maker Fee for Removing Liquidity in Complex Orders when the
Market Maker is not executing a Customer order intended for that Market
Maker. Moreover, in a given month the effective Complex Order Fee for
Removing Liquidity for a Market Maker that also has executions subject
to the Directed Participant rate is approximately $0.02 below the
Market Maker Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For example if a Market Maker, that is the intended
recipient of a Customer Complex Order, only executes the Customer
Complex Order 14.5% of the time (paying the Directed Participant
Complex Order fee of $0.32 per contract), then that Market Maker is
paying the proposed Market Maker Complex Order fee of $0.37 per
contract the other 85.5% of the time. The effective Complex Order
Fee for Removing Liquidity for that Market Maker is $0.3613 in a
given month, less than $0.01 below the rate paid by a Market Maker
that never receives a Customer Complex Order directed to it for
execution. Approximately 80% of Market Makers executing Customer
Complex Orders receive an order directed to it for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange bases its belief that the proposed fees are
reasonable, in part, on an analysis of the level of price improvement
currently received by Customer Complex Orders trading in an auction
process. Based on an analysis of the week of October 10, 2011, Customer
Complex Orders received price improvement 29% of the time and the
average level of price improvement was $0.059 per option or $5.90 per
contract for options receiving price improvement. Market Makers compete
in offering price improvement in auctions. The significant difference
in magnitude between the proposed $0.03 per contract increased fee
differential (between Market Makers and Directed Participants) and the
extent of price improvement supports the Exchange's belief that the
proposed fee is reasonable and will have a negligible impact on
Directed and non-Directed Market Makers.
New Volume Discount
    The Exchange is further incentivizing Market Makers by providing an
opportunity to lower the Market Maker and Directed Participant Complex
Order Fees for Removing Liquidity, as applicable, when a Market Maker
executes more than 25,000 Complex Order contracts (either adding or
removing liquidity) per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to
reduce, by $0.01 per contract, the Market Maker and Directed
Participant Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity, as applicable on
all of their transactions for the month (``Added Incentive''). The
Exchange believes that the Added Incentive will encourage all Market
Makers to transact additional order flow at the Exchange because of the
fee reduction. All Market Maker Complex Order contracts will be counted
toward the 25,000 contracts per day in a month. The Exchange also
believes that this Added Incentive to Market Makers that pay for
directed orders will encourage those Market Makers to continue to pay
for such orders and provide liquidity to

the market even without a guaranteed allocation in Complex Orders,
because the Added Incentive would benefit Market Makers whether
directed or not, but, in the instance the Market Maker is assessed a
Directed Participant fee, the benefit is greater. The Exchange believes
that its proposal to allow Market Makers to aggregate trading activity
where there is at least 75% common ownership between member
organizations is reasonable, because this would allow member
organizations to also obtain the Added Incentive by combining
transaction fees where the common ownership is met. The Exchange
currently permits such aggregation in the calculation of the Monthly
Market Maker Cap.\30\ The Exchange believes that permitting member
organizations with at least 75% common ownership to aggregate fees to
obtain the Added Incentive is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the ability to aggregate would apply uniformly to all member
organizations that are at least 75% commonly owned, but chose to
operate under separate entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Section II of the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange desires to continue to encourage Market Makers to
enter into order flow arrangements by assessing a lower Directed
Participant Fee for Removing Liquidity, as compared to the Market Maker
Fee for Removing Liquidity. The Exchange believes that offering a
Directed Participant fee that is a lower Fee for Removing Liquidity
than the Market Maker Fee to Remove Liquidity offsets costs incurred by
these Market Markers that pay for order flow and assume the risk of
possibly being assessed the same Fee for Removing Liquidity as a Market
Maker who did not enter into similar arrangements. Today, options
exchanges aggressively compete for Complex order flow. In January 2012,
based on data from the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''),
the average daily equity options complex order transactions on the
various option exchanges totaled 117,539. The combined total for the
last six months of 2011 was 593,286. With respect to market share, the
six options exchanges handling complex orders had market share in
complex orders ranging from 2.4% to 40.1% in January 2012.
    The benefit that a Market Maker brings to the Exchange when it pays
for order flow is not an insignificant one and this benefit should not
go unrewarded. Market Makers who pay for order flow must still compete
for that order flow with other Exchange participants in order to reap
benefits. This competition provides the Exchange greater execution
quality, which also benefits all participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker and Directed
Participant Complex Order Fees for Removing Liquidity and the Added
Incentive are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because: (i) Market Makers are not entitled to guaranteed allocations
for directed Complex Orders; \31\ (ii) all Market Makers have an equal
opportunity to incentivize an OFP to direct an order to it for
execution on the Exchange; (iii) only Customer orders that are directed
by an OFP and executed by the intended Market Maker receive the Complex
Order Directed Participant fee; \32\ (iv) the proposed Directed
Participant and Market Maker Complex Order fees are less than the fees
assessed to Firms, Professionals and Broker-Dealers because of
obligations carried by those Market Makers which do not burden other
participants; (v) Market Makers are unaware of the identity of the
contra-party at the time of the trade and are also required to execute
at the best price, pursuant to Exchange Rules, against an order
intended for them by an OFP in order to be assessed the Directed
Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity (the only benefit)
which does not happen more than 80% of the time; (vi) order flow
arrangements benefit all market participants equally through added
liquidity; and (vii) the Added Incentive will further encourage Market
Makers to respond more aggressively in the COLA, with respect to
Customer orders, and sweep resting orders in CBOOK thereby improving
execution quality of Customer Complex Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Unlike Complex Orders, Single contra-side orders are
governed by Rule 1014. Specifically, Directed Orders that are
executed electronically shall be automatically allocated as follows:
(A) First, to customer limit orders resting on the limit order book
at the execution price; (B) Thereafter, contracts remaining in the
Directed Order, if any, shall be allocated automatically as follows:
(1) The Directed Specialist (where applicable), shall be allocated a
number of contracts that is the greater of: (a) the proportion of
the aggregate size at the NBBO associated with such Directed
Specialist's quote, SQT and RSQT quotes, and non-SQT ROT limit
orders entered on the book at the disseminated price represented by
the size of the Directed Specialist's quote; (b) the Enhanced
Specialist Participation as described in Rule 1014(g)(ii); or (c)
40% of the remaining contracts. See Rule 1014(g)(viii). Thereafter,
SQTs and RSQTs quoting at the disseminated price, and non-SQT ROTs
that have placed limit orders on the limit order book via electronic
interface at the Exchange's disseminated price shall be allocated
contracts according to a formula specified in Rule 1014(g)(viii). If
any contracts remain to be allocated after the specialist, SQTs,
RSQTs and non-SQT ROTs with limit orders on the limit order book
have received their respective allocations, off-floor broker-dealers
(as defined in Rule 1080(b)(i)(C)) that have placed limit orders on
the limit order book which represent the Exchange's disseminated
price shall be entitled to receive a number of contracts that is the
proportion of the aggregate size associated with off-floor broker-
dealer limit orders on the limit order book at the disseminated
price represented by the size of the limit order they have placed on
the limit order book.
    \32\ Other markets discount their directed fee for other classes
of market participants in addition to customers. For example, NYSE
Amex assesses a an [sic] options market maker that is non directed a
fee of $0.17 per contract and am [sic] options market maker that is
directed a fee of $0.15 per contract. See NYSE Amex's Fee Schedule.
Phlx only assesses the Directed Participant Fee for Removing
Liquidity with respect to Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
nine exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or rebates offered to be insufficient.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed by the Exchange and the rebates
it pays for options overlying the various Select Symbols in Complex
Orders must remain competitive with fees and rebates charged/paid by
other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange
rather than competing venues.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\33\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-27 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6229 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 161)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51434-51436]
[DOCID:fr20au10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271, and 302

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL-9191-5]
RIN-2050-AE81

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From
Electric Utilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule: corrections, extension of the comment period,
and additional public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: On June 21, 2010, EPA proposed to regulate the disposal of
coal combustion residuals generated from the combustion of coal at
electric utilities and by independent power producers. This action
makes several administrative corrections in the preamble to the
proposed rule, which were discovered after the proposal was published
in the Federal Register. In addition, EPA is providing notice that
additional support documents are available for public inspection in the
rulemaking docket.
    This action also extends the deadline for submitting written
comments on the proposed rule to November 19, 2010. This extension
provides an additional 60 days for the public to provide written
comments. EPA received numerous requests for an extension of the
comment period and this notice is the Agency's response to those
persons who requested an extension of the comment period.
    Also, in response to significant public interest in the proposed
rule, the Agency recently announced on its Web site that it will
conduct two additional public hearings on the proposed rule, one in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the other in Louisville, Kentucky, and an
additional Webinar. Additional information on these announcements is
included in this notice.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before
November 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is
not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public
docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address.
E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system
are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official
public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
     Fax: Comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>; Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
     Mail: Send your comments to the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket,
Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing
of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric
Utilities Docket, Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2009-0640. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special
Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the June 21, 2010,
proposed rule or today's notice, contact Alexander Livnat, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mailcode 5304P, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Steve Souders, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mailcode 5304P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions concerning the public hearings or the Webinars, please
contact Bonnie Robinson, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Mailcode 5304P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Elaine Eby, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mailcode 5304P, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background on the Proposed Rule

    On June 21, 2010, EPA co-proposed two options for regulating the
disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal
ash, generated from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and by
independent power producers (75 FR 35128). Under the first proposal,
EPA would reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory
Determinations regarding CCRs and list these residuals as special
wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), when they are destined for
disposal in landfills and surface impoundments. Under the second
proposal, EPA would leave the Bevill Regulatory Determinations in place
and regulate the disposal of such materials under subtitle D of RCRA by
issuing national minimum criteria. Under both alternatives, EPA
proposed not to change the May 2000 Regulatory Determination for
beneficially used CCRs, which are currently exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations under Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA.
    To assist the reader in reviewing the proposed rule and the
corrections published today, EPA has made available an unofficial
version of the entire corrected proposal on its Web site, which can be
accessed at http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule.

B. Corrections to the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule as published in the Federal Register on June 21,
2010, contained a number of inadvertent administrative errors in: (1)
The ADDRESSES section; (2) a table summarizing EPA's estimates of
regulatory costs and benefits; (3) the discussion of EPA's risk
assessment; and (4) a footnote. Accordingly, the June 21, 2010
publication of the proposed rule is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 35128, second column, sixth paragraph, in the first
sentence, ``Mailcode: 5305T,'' is corrected to read ``Mailcode:
28221T,''.
    2. On page 35134, Table 1 is replaced with the following table.

    Table 1--Summary Table Comparison of Regulatory Benefits to Costs--Ranging Over All Three Beneficial Use
                                                    Scenarios
     [$Millions @ 2009 $ prices and @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Subtitle C ``special
                                               waste''                 Subtitle D          Subtitle ``D prime''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                A. Present Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Regulatory Costs..................  $20,349................  $8,095.................  $3,259.
2. Regulatory Benefits...............  ($230,817) to $102,191.  $1,168 to $41,761......  $593 to $17,501.
3. Net Benefits (2-1)................  ($251,166) to $81,842..  ($6,927) to $33,666....  ($2,666) to $14,242.
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1)..........  (11.343) to 5.022......  0.144 to 5.159.........  0.182 to 5.370.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    B. Average Annualized Equivalent Values *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Regulatory Costs..................  $1,474.................  $587...................  $236.
2. Regulatory Benefits...............  ($16,725) to $7,405....  $85 to $3,026..........  $43 to $1,268.
3. Net Benefits (2-1)................  ($18,199) to $5,930....  ($502) to $2,439.......  ($193) to $1,032.
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1)..........  (11.343) to 5.022......  0.144 to 5.159.........  0.182 to 5.370.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Average annualized equivalent values calculated by multiplying 50-year present values by a 50-year 7%
  discount rate ``capital recovery factor'' of 0.07246.

    3. On page 35144, second column, third paragraph, the first
sentence which reads ``EPA submitted the revised draft risk assessment
report, together with public comments on the report in response to the
2007 NODA, to a peer review panel. EPA completed the risk assessment,
taking into account peer review comments, in a final report titled
``Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes,''
(September 2009).'' is corrected to read ``EPA submitted the revised
draft risk assessment report, together with public comments on the
report in response to the 2007 NODA, to a peer review panel. EPA
completed the risk assessment, taking into account peer review
comments, in a final report titled ``Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes,'' (April 2010).''
    4. On page 35170, in the first column, the first full sentence
which reads ``A detailed discussion of the modeling and risks from this
pathway can be found in U.S. EPA 2009a (available in the docket for
this proposal).'' is corrected to read ``A detailed discussion of the
modeling and risks from this pathway can be found in U.S. EPA 2010a
(available in the docket for this proposal).''
    5. On page 35170, in the first column, third paragraph, the third
sentence which reads ``For CCRs co-managed with coal refule, thallium
is estimated at two times the reference dose in unlined landfills at
the 90th percentile, but did not exceed the reference dose at the 0th
percentile for any liner type.'' is corrected to read ``For CCRs co-
managed with coal refuse, thallium is estimated at two times the
reference dose in unlined landfills at the 90th percentile, but did not
exceed the reference dose at the 50th percentile for any liner type.''
    6. On page 35170, in the second column, at the end of the first
paragraph, the sentence ``Of the contaminated groundwater plumes that
are estimated to reach the receptor wells from composite-lined units,
the median time to peak well concentration as not estimated to sour in
the 10,000 year time period that was modeled.101'' is
corrected to read ``Of the contaminated groundwater plumes that are
estimated to reach the receptor wells from composite-lined units, the
median time to peak well concentrations was not

estimated to occur in the 10,000 year time period that was
modeled.101''
    7. On page 35220, first column, footnote 165 which reads ``U.S.
EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Regulation of Coal
Combustion Wastes Generated by the Electric Utility Industry, 2009.
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.'' is corrected to read
``U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Regulation of
Coal Combustion Wastes Generated by the Electric Utility Industry,
April 2010. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.''

C. Notice That Additional Support Documents Have been Placed in the
Docket

    This document also notifies the public that EPA has included
additional support documents in the proposed rule docket. Documents
that were referenced in the proposed rule, and were previously found
only on EPA's Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) Web site have
been moved to the docket for this rulemaking. Similarly, EPA has
included in the docket a notice that describes a file transfer protocol
(FTP) site where the public can download the full scale risk modeling
input and output files used in the document entitled, ``Draft Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes,'' April, 2010.
EPA also has added the executable files for the models used in the risk
assessment in the same FTP site. As part of the proposed rule, EPA had
stated that these materials would be available upon request; in the
interest of ensuring the greatest degree of public access, EPA has
subsequently decided to place them in the rulemaking docket.
    EPA therefore recommends that the public consult the docket to
access all of EPA's record support documents. The docket provides the
date on which the material was added, so newly added materials will be
easily identifiable.

D. Two Additional Public Hearings

    On July 15, 2010 (75 FR 41121), EPA announced in the Federal
Register its intent to conduct five public hearings across the United
States to allow the public an opportunity to present data, views or
arguments concerning the proposed rule. These public hearings are
scheduled to take place in Arlington, Virginia; Denver, Colorado;
Dallas, Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Chicago, Illinois. Given
the significant public interest in this rule and to further public
participation opportunities, on August 6, 2010, EPA announced on its
website that it would hold two additional public hearings, one in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 21, 2010, and the other in
Louisville, Kentucky, on September 28, 2010. These public hearings will
be conducted in the same manner as the public hearings announced in the
July 15, 2010, Federal Register notice. Details on the Pittsburgh and
Louisville public hearings can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-
hearing.htm. If you have any questions, please contact either Bonnie
Robinson or Elaine Eby at the addresses given above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. Additional Webinar

    EPA previously announced that the Agency will be hosting two
Webinars; one on August 5, 2010, and a second on August 12, 2010. On
August 6, 2010, EPA announced on its Web site that we would conduct an
additional Webinar. As soon as the scope and format of the third
Webinar is determined, EPA will post such information on the Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-
webinar.htm. EPA will post the transcript from the Webinars on its Web
site and will put into the rulemaking record the questions that we
receive during the Webinars. However, the Webinars are designed to
assist the public in understanding the proposal and are not designed to
take public comment on the proposal. For example, many of the questions
that were submitted appear to have been made in response to statements
made as part of the presentation, and may not be entirely clear without
that context. Consequently, although EPA will treat the questions
submitted during the Webinar as part of the rulemaking record, (and
will respond accordingly), EPA encourages those who submitted questions
as part of the Webinar, and who wish to submit comments on the
proposal, to consider whether they wish to supplement or clarify those
questions, and to follow the procedures for submitting comments set out
in this notice and in our June 21 proposal.

    Dated: August 12, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010-20703 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 138)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39571-39573]
[DOCID:fr19jy07-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0715; FRL-8440-2]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of the Clark and Floyd Counties 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2006, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request to EPA for approval of the
redesignation of the Indiana portion of the Louisville 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area (Clark
and Floyd Counties) to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and of an
ozone maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd Counties as revisions to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). On May 8, 2007, EPA proposed
to approve this submission and no adverse comments have been received.
Today, EPA is approving Indiana's request and corresponding SIP
revision. In so doing, EPA is making a determination that the Indiana
portion of the Louisville 8-hour ozone NAAQS has attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. This determination is based on three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2003-2005
ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been
attained in the area. In addition, quality-assured monitoring data for
2006 show that the area continues to attain the standard. Finally, EPA
is approving, for purposes of transportation conformity, the motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the years 2003 and 2020.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0715. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,''
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Are Our Final Actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in EPA's
May 8, 2007 proposal (72 FR 26057). In that rulemaking, we noted that,
under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is
attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to
0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information.)
The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of
days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no
single year has less than 75% data completeness, as determined in
accordance with Appendix I of Part 50.
    Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to
attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available
to determine that the area has attained the standard and that it meets
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
    On November 15, 2006, Indiana submitted a request for the
redesignation of Clark and Floyd Counties to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. The request included three years of complete, quality-
assured data for the period of 2003 through 2005, indicating the 8-hour
NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The data satisfy the applicable CAA
requirements discussed above. The May 8, 2007, proposed rule provides a
detailed discussion of how Indiana met these requirements.
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June
8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No.
04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged.
Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the
Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the
Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard
in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under
the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment
area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS. In addition, the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's
reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was
limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the

Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation
action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from
finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December
22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
    With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that
for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their 1-
hour maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-
hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must continue to comply with the
applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part
93. The Court clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not
required for anti-backsliding purposes.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period and received no
comments.

III. What Are Our Final Actions?

    EPA is taking several related actions for the Indiana portion of
the Louisville 8-hour nonattainment area (Clark and Floyd Counties).
First, EPA is making a determination that Clark and Floyd Counties have
attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also approving the State's
request to change the legal designation of Clark and Floyd Counties
from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further,
EPA is approving Indiana's maintenance plan SIP revision for Clark and
Floyd Counties (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for
redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed
to keep Clark and Floyd Counties in attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS through 2020 by ensuring that the VOC and NOX
emissions in both Clark and Floyd Counties and the entire Louisville
area will be lower in 2020 than in 2003, an attainment year. Finally,
as supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plan, EPA is
approving the 2003 and the 2020 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the
Louisville area for transportation conformity purposes.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good
cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon
publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary
due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the
area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it.
The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section
553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect.
Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements
such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule
takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning
requirements for these 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. For these
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these
actions to become effective on the date of publication of these
actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on
sources, or allows a State to avoid adopting or implementing additional
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 17, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to force its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 10, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.777  Control strategy: photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *
    (ii) Approval--On November 15, 2006, Indiana submitted a request to
redesignate the Indiana portion of the Louisville 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (Clark and Floyd Counties) to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. As part of the
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section
175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to
submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in eight years as
required by the Clean Air Act. Also included were motor vehicle
emission budgets to determine transportation conformity for the entire
Louisville area. The 2003 and 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets are
40.97 tons per day for VOC and 95.51 tons per day for NOX,
and 22.92 tons per day for VOC and 29.46 tons per day for
NOX, respectively.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Louisville, KY-
IN: Clark and Floyd Counties in the table entitled ``Indiana Ozone (8-
Hour Standard)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                                  Indiana Ozone
                                                [8-hour standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation \a\                         Classification
         Designated area          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\              Type              Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Louisville, KY-IN:
    Clark County.                     July 19,  Attainment...............
    Floyd County.................         2007

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. E7-13791 Filed 7-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 11010]
[DOCID:fr12mr07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-331-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC (FGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 7, to become
effective April 1, 2007.
    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>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4393 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ATTACHED BINARY OBJECT DATA STANDARD Standard No.: 1 XXX Version 1 FINAL DRAFT July 26, 2005 This standard has been produced through the Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC).

The Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC) is a partnership among EPA, States and Tribal partners to develop and agree upon data standards for environmental information collection and exchange. More information about the EDSC is available at http:// www. envdatastandards. net. Attached Binary Object Data Standard Std No.: 1 xxx Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 3 Foreword The Environmental Data Standards Council identifies, prioritizes and pursues the creation of data standards for those areas where information exchange standards will provide the most value in achieving environmental results. The Council involves Tribes and Tribal Nations, state and federal agencies in the development of the standards and then provides the draft materials for general review. Business groups, non governmental organizations, and other interested parties may then provide input and comment for Council consideration and standard finalization. Draft and final standards are available at http:// www. envdatastandards. net.

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Attached Binary Object Data Standard provides the elements to identify the characteristics and/ or catalog an attached digital data item/ object. The standard can be used to reference documents, images, photos, GIS data layers, laboratory materials and other electronic objects attached within the data exchange, as well as information used to describe those objects.

1.1 Scope This standard provides and describes data groupings that are used to exchange documents, images, photos, GIS data layers, laboratory materials and other electronic objects attached within the data exchange, as well as information used to describe those objects.

1.2 References to Other Data Standards This standard relies on other standards to make it complete and provide the necessary support. As such users should consider the references to other data standards noted below as integral to the Attached Binary Object Data Standard. These include:

  Bibliographic Reference Data Standard ( Final Draft Version 1.0)

  ISO 15836: 2003 Information and documentation   Dublin Core Metadata Element Set 1.3 Terms and Definitions For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

Term Definition Attached Binary Object Reference documents, images, photos, GIS data layers, laboratory materials and other electronic objects attached within the data exchange, as well as information used to describe those objects.

1.4 Implementation Users are encouraged to use the XML registry housed on the Exchange Network Web site to download schema components for the construction of XML schema flows ( http:// www. exchangenetwork. net).

1.5 Document Structure The structure of this document is briefly described below:

a. Section 2.0 Attached Binary Object Data Standards Diagram illustrates the principal data groupings contained within this standard. Attached Binary Object Data Standard Std No.: 1 xxx Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 4 b. Section 3.0 Attached Binary Object Data Standard Table provides information on the high level, intermediate and elemental Attached Binary Object data groupings. Where applicable, for each level of this data standard a definition, XML tag, note( s), example list of values and format are provided. The format column may include the number of characters for the associated data element, where " A" specifies alphanumeric and " N" designates numeric. c. Data Standard Numbering: For purposes of clarity and to enhance understanding of data standard hierarchy and relationships, each data group is numerically classified from the primary to the elemental level. d. Code and Identifier metadata: Based on the business need, additional metadata may be required to sufficiently describe an identifier or a code. A note regarding this additional metadata is included in the notes column for identifier and code elements. Additional metadata for identifiers may include:

  Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context or source of the set of codes Additional metadata for codes may include:

  Code List Identifier, which is a standardized reference to the context or source of the set of codes   Code List Version Identifier, which identifies the particular version of the set of codes.

  Code List Version Agency Identifier, which identifies the agency responsible for maintaining the set of codes   Code List Name, which describes the corresponding name for which the code represents e. Appendix A, Attached Binary Object Data Standard Structure Diagram illustrates the hierarchical classification of the Attached Binary Object data standard. This diagram enables business and technical users of this standard to quickly understand its general content and complexity. Attached Binary Object Data Standard Std No.: 1 xxx Version 1   Final Draft July 26, 2005 Page 5 2.0 ATTACHED BINARY OBJECT DATA STANDARD DIAGRAM This diagram specifies the major data groups that may be used to identify the characteristics and/ or to catalog an attached binary object.

Attached Binary Object Data Standard 1.0 Binary Object Exchange Characteristics 2.0 Binary Object Bibliographic Reference Attached Binary Object Data Standard Std No.: 1 xxx Version 1   Final Draft June 7, 2005 Page 6 3.0 ATTACHED BINARY OBJECT DATA STANDARDS TABLE 1.0 Binary Object Exchange Characteristics Definition: The object and its exchange characteristics.

Relationships: None.

Notes: None.

XML Tag: BinaryObject Name Definition Notes Format XML Tag 1.1 Binary Object The actual binary object. Example list of values:

  Reference document   Image Photo   GIS data layer   Audio recording   Laboratory material A( 50) BinaryObjectCont ent 1.2 Binary Object File Name The text describing the descriptive name used to represent the file,

including file extension. Example list of values:

  " Chain of Custody. doc" A( 50) BinaryObjectFileN ame 1.3 Binary Object Document File Type The text or acronym describing the binary content type of a file Example list of values:

  XML an XML document   Flat a flat text file   Bin a binary object   ZIP a compressed file in ZIP   Other an unspecified file format A( 15) BinaryObjectFileT ypeCode 1.4 Binary Object Size Indicates the binary object size in bytes. May be useful for sender or receiver to determine how best to handle file. A( 15) BinaryObjectSize Value Attached Binary Object Data Standard Std No.: 1 xxx Version 1   Final Draft June 7, 2005 Page 7 2.0 Binary Object Bibliographic Reference Definition: The descriptors used to identify and catalog an object.

Relationships: None.

Notes: Reference the Bibliographic Reference Information Data Standard XML Tag: BinaryObjectBibliographicReference Attached Binary Object Data Standard Std No.: 1 xxx Version 1   Final Draft June 7, 2005 Page 8 Appendix A Attached Binary Object Data Standard Structure Diagram Attached Binary Object Data Standard 1.0 Binary Object Exchange Characteristics 1.1 Binary Object 1.2 Binary Object File Name 1.3 Binary Object Document File Type 1.4 Binary Object Size 2.0 Binary Object Bibliographic Reference


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 13339]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04610]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9785-7; CERCLA-04-2013-3755]

Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Site; Davie, Broward County, FL;
Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with 2238
NW. 86th Street Inc. concerning the Florida Petroleum Reprocessors Site
located in Davie, Broward County, Florida. The settlement addresses the
PRP's Site-wide liability on an Ability-to-Pay basis.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
March 29, 2013. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V.
Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Florida Petroleum
Reprocesssors Site by one of the following methods:
     www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: January 22, 2013.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-04610 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P