November 1, 2007

SER name

  and address

Dear [SER name]

Thank you for agreeing to review OSHA’s draft standard on Beryllium.
I am the Chair of a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel composed
of government officials from OSHA, the Office of Advocacy within the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA Office of Advocacy), and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  We very much appreciate your
willingness to take the time to help us review this important
regulation.

The SBAR panel is being formed in accordance with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).  SBREFA was
enacted by Congress to ensure that small businesses potentially affected
by an OSHA standard have the opportunity to review a proposed rule
before its publication. As a small entity representative (SER), we are
inviting you to provide comments and recommendations about the draft
proposed standard and it’s potential impacts on your business.

Attached are several documents for your review.  Of particular
importance are the draft proposed regulation and the Preliminary Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (PIRFA).   A complete list of enclosed
materials is provided at the end of this letter.  Please note that in
addition to the general materials, the panel is also providing you with
some additional materials that pertain solely to your business/industry
-- rather than for all affected sectors.  If you wish to see information
for all sectors, or some scientific articles identified in the PIRFA’s
list of references, we will be happy to provide them to you.  You are
not being asked to review materials for other industries though.

About a month after this letter is mailed, the SBAR panel will convene
and you will have the opportunity to participate in a teleconference to
provide the panel with your comments.  You can also attend the
teleconference in person in Washington, D.C., if you wish.  We will
notify you shortly of the exact date and time of the conference calls
(we schedule two of these so that each SER can participate in one call
each).  The dates will likely be between November 30 and December 4,
2007.  There will probably be about 10-15 small entity representatives
participating in each of the calls, which take 2 to 3 hours.  Following
the conference call, you will have two additional weeks to provide
written comments if you wish.

After receiving any written responses from the SERs, the panel prepares
a report based on your comments to present to Edwin G. Foulke Jr., the
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.  The
panel report will then become part of the official public record for
this rulemaking.

In order to include the substance of your written comments in the SBAR
panel’s report, we request that you provide these by December 15 (or
earlier, if possible).  This deadline is necessary so that the panel can
complete its report within the time limits specified by SBREFA.  Your
written comments may address any of the issues or concerns you have with
the draft rule or materials.  Written comments can be sent by email to
Kathleen Martinez at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Ms. Martinez is
organizing much of the work of the panel, including the conference
calls, so please direct any administrative questions to her at (202)
693-1953.

Please feel free to telephone or e-mail us before the teleconference
calls with any questions regarding this process or the enclosed
materials.  You may contact Bruce Lundegren from SBA’s Office of
Advocacy -- whose office represents the views of small business in the
SBREFA process.  Mr. Lundegren’s telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>
and his email address is   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.   At OSHA you may contact Paul Bolon, senior
economist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or myself at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  You are free
to discuss these materials with the other SERs, or anyone else, as they
are considered public documents.

Thank you again for agreeing to participate in this important review.
We appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with you.

					Sincerely yours,

					Robert Burt

					Chair, Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

					Occupational Safety and Health Administration

cc:	Bruce Lundegren, SBA Office of Advocacy

	John Kraemer, OMB

Enclosures:

Tab 1   List of SERs and contact numbers for all, including OSHA, SBA,
and OMB

Tab 2   Schedule

Tab 3   Issues document

Tab 4   Draft Regulatory Text

Tab 5   PIRFA (Preliminary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)

Tab 6   Reports on technological feasibility for individual SER
industries

Tab 7   Reports on cost estimate methods and individual industry costs

Tab 8   Background materials on SBREFA:    Procedures for Compliance
with the Regulatory Development and Review Requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46367]
[DOCID:fr09se09-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 138

[USCG-2005-21780]
RIN 1625-AA98

Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels) and OPA 90
Limits of Liability (Vessels and Deepwater Ports)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Announcement of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
of collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing that the collection of
information requirement under 33 CFR 138.85, entitled ``Financial
Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels),'' has been approved by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB control number
is 1625-0046.

DATES: The collection of information requirement under 33 CFR 138.85
will be enforced from September 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this document
contact Mr. Benjamin White, National Pollution Funds Center, Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket (USCG-2005-21780), call Ms. Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 17, 2008, the Coast Guard
published a final rule entitled ``Financial Responsibility for Water
Pollution (Vessels) and OPA 90 Limits of Liability (Vessels and
Deepwater Ports)'' (73 FR 53691) (COFR final rule), amending the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) financial responsibility requirements,
including the information collection requirements under 33 CFR 138.85.
With the exception of this collection of information, the COFR final
rule became effective on October 17, 2008.
    This information collection under 33 CFR 138.85 requires operators
of vessels to establish evidence of financial responsibility under OPA
90, 33 U.S.C. 2716, acceptable to the Director, National Pollution
Funds Center, in an amount equal to or greater than the total
applicable amounts determined under 33 CFR 138.80(f). As required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the COFR
final rule preamble stated that the Coast Guard would not enforce the
collection of information requirements under 33 CFR 138.85 until the
collection of information request was approved by OMB, and the Coast
Guard published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that OMB
approved and assigned a control number for the requirement.
    The Coast Guard submitted the information collection request under
Sec.  138.85 of the COFR final rule to OMB for approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On July 15, 2009, OMB
approved the collection of information and assigned the collection OMB
Control Number 1625-0046 entitled ``Financial Responsibility for Water
Pollution (Vessels), (33 CFR 138.85).'' The approval for this
collection of information expires on July 31, 2012. A copy of the OMB
notice of action is available in our online docket at http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 1, 2009.
Craig A. Bennett,
Director, National Pollution Funds Center, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-21442 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77210-77211]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26475]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0690, FRL-10017-64-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; General Hazardous Waste Facility
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), General Hazardous Waste Facility
(EPA ICR Number 1571.13, OMB Control Number 2050-0120) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31, 2020. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on March 26, 2020
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OLEM-2018-0690, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended, requires the EPA to develop standards for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) as
may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Subsections 3004(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) specify that these
standards include, but not be limited to, the following requirements:
     Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or
listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and
the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;
     Operating methods, techniques, and practices for
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;
     Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste
treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;
     Contingency plans for effective action to minimize
unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any
such hazardous waste; and
     Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring
such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of
operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may
be necessary or desirable.
    The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in 40
CFR parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables the
EPA to properly determine whether owners/operators or hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of
Section 3004(a) of RCRA.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business and other for-profit, as
well as State, Local, and Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA section 3004).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,191.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 558,042 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $37,504,209 (per year), which includes
$337,223 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is decrease of 25,195 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is not due to a program change, but is
due to the Agency's push to have facilities leave interim status and
enter permitted status, as well as facilities wishing to close to enter
post-closure status. This has led to a dramatic decrease in the number
of interim status facilities, as well as increased the number of
facilities in post-closure.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-26475 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61081-61082]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2002-D-0268 (formerly Docket No. 2002D-0005)]

International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH
GL30); Guidance for Industry on Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary
Medicinal Products: Controlled List of Terms; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry (GFI #143) entitled ``Guidance
for Industry on Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products:
Controlled List of Terms'' (VICH GL30). This guidance has been
developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary
Medicinal Products (VICH). The purpose of this VICH guidance document
is to describe the controlled lists of terms critical to completing the
controlled data fields as identified in the guidance entitled ``Data
Elements for Submission of Veterinary Adverse Event Reports to the
Center for Veterinary Medicine'' (GFI #188), available on the FDA Web
site at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm042450.htm.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the guidance to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margarita Brown, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-240), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its
commitment to seek scientifically based, harmonized technical
procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the
goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in
technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies
in different countries.
    FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of
Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized
technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and
biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United
States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal
products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical
requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the
European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from
both regulatory and industry representatives.
    The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives
from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency,
European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal
Products, FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health
Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the
Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
    Six observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering
Committee: One representative from the governments of Australia/New
Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand,
one representative from the government of Canada, one representative
from the industry of Canada, one representative from the government of
South Africa, and one representative from the industry of South Africa.
The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of
documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal
Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH
Steering Committee meetings.

II. Guidance on Controlled Lists of Terms

    In the Federal Register of June 21, 2007 (72 FR 34261), FDA
published a notice of availability for a revised draft guidance
entitled ``Revised Draft Guidance for Industry on Pharmacovigilance of
Veterinary Medicinal Products: Controlled List of Terms'' (VICH GL30).
Interested persons were given until July 23, 2007, to comment on the
revised draft guidance. FDA received a few comments on the draft
revised guidance, and those comments, as well as those received by
other VICH member regulatory agencies, were considered as the guidance
was finalized. The guidance announced in this document finalizes the
draft revised guidance dated June 20, 2007. The final guidance is a
product of the Pharmacovigilance Expert Working Group of the VICH.
    This VICH guidance document describes the controlled lists of terms
critical to completing the controlled data fields as indicated in FDA's
``Guidance for Industry, Data Elements for Submission of Veterinary
Adverse Event Reports to the Center for Veterinary Medicine'' (GFI
#188). To assess the safety and efficacy of veterinary medicinal
products, the use of controlled lists of terms is important in order to
assure consistency, as well as to provide for comparison between
products and across product classes. This guidance also includes an
appropriate maintenance procedure to keep the lists of terms up to
date.

III. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised
to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
For example, the document has been designated ``guidance'' rather than
``guideline.'' In addition, guidance documents must not include
mandatory language such as ``shall,'' ``must,'' ``require,'' or
``requirement,'' unless FDA is using these words to describe a
statutory or regulatory requirement.
    The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this
topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may
be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of applicable
statutes and regulations.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in this guidance have been approved under
OMB control numbers 0910-0284 and 0910-0645.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

VI. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 6, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24152 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 58646-58649]
[DOCID:fr04oc06-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54526; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-70]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1
Thereto To Adopt Rules Relating to Regulation NMS

September 27, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On August 18, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposal to modify its rules relating
to the trading of non-option securities to conform with Regulation NMS.
The proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on
August 25, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission on
September 27, 2006.\4\ This notice and order requests comment on
Amendment No. 1 and approves the proposal, as amended, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53112 (January 12,
2006), 71 FR 3579.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Commission recently approved the Exchange's proposal to
establish a new electronic trading system for non-option securities
known as ``Stock Trading on CBOEdirect'' or ``STOC.''\5\ In this
filing, CBOE proposes additional rules and additional system
functionality to STOC designed to comply with Regulation NMS and to
enable CBOE to qualify as automated trading center whose quotations
will be protected under Regulation NMS. In its release extending the
compliance dates for Rules 610 (the Access Rule) and 611 (the Order
Protection Rule) of Regulation NMS,\6\ the Commission established a
``Specifications Date'' of October 16, 2006, by which final technical
specifications for interaction with Regulation NMS-compliant trading
systems of automated trading centers must be published on SRO Web
sites. Among other things, these specifications must address: (1) The
identification of quotations as automated or manual to meet the
requirements of Rule 600(b)(4);\7\ (2) an immediate-or-cancel order
(``IOC'') functionality that meets the requirements of Rule
600(b)(3);\8\ and (3) an intermarket sweep order (``ISO'')
functionality that allows other industry participants to meet the
requirements of Rule 600(b)(30).\9\ The proposed rules would modify the
existing STOC rules to address these requirements as well as other
matters relating to Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54422 (September
11, 2006), 71 FR 54537 (September 15, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2004-21).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006), 71
FR 30038 (May 24, 2006) (``Regulation NMS Compliance Date
Release'').
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.604(b)(4).
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.604(b)(3).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.604(b)(30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless execution of an order would cause an impermissible trade-
through of a protected quotation of another trading center, all
marketable orders would automatically execute on the STOC system
against the system's best bid or offer (which incorporates resting
limit orders and interest from CBOE market-makers). There would be no
manual quotations, and STOC is designed to provide quotations that are
always ``automated'' for purposes of Rule 600(b)(4). If CBOE were to
experience a technical failure, it would cease disseminating quotations
(as opposed to disseminating manual quotations).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed CBOE Rule 52.13(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify its existing rule defining and
governing the handling of IOC orders to make clear that, consistent
with the requirements of Regulation NMS, IOC orders routed to the STOC
System would either be immediately executed (in part or in full) or
canceled.\11\ The Exchange also is proposing to adopt a rule providing
that, consistent with the requirements of Regulation NMS, ISOs routed
to CBOE would be immediately and automatically executed on receipt
without regard for better-priced protected quotations displayed by
other trading centers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Such orders would not be ``held up'' for manual processing
or for potential price improvement above CBOE's disseminated
quotation. See proposed CBOE Rule 51.8(g)(4).
    \12\ See proposed CBOE Rule 51.8(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has proposed additional rules relating to Regulation NMS.
First, as required by Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS,\13\ CBOE has
proposed to add language providing that members should reasonably avoid
displaying quotations that lock or cross protected quotations from
other trading centers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.610(d)
    \14\ See proposed CBOE Rule 52.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange is proposing language that will allow it to
invoke the ``self-help'' exception contained in Rule 611(b)(1) of
Regulation NMS.\15\ CBOE could invoke self-help and bypass quotations
displayed by a trading center if the trading center repeatedly fails to
respond within one second to orders attempting to access its protected
quotations, provided the failures are attributable to the trading
center and not to transmission delays outside its control. CBOE must
immediately notify the trading center of its determination to invoke
self-help.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 242.611(b)(1).
    \16\ See proposed CBOE Rule 52.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, when appropriate functionality is available on CBOE, the
Exchange would provide outbound routing, through a third-party service
provider (``Routing Service Provider''), to other trading centers
displaying better-priced protected quotations on behalf of orders that
may be routed.\17\ This outbound

routing would be provided directly and automatically by CBOE pursuant
to three separate agreements: (1) An agreement between the Exchange and
each member on whose behalf orders would be routed; (2) an agreement
between the Exchange and each third-party broker-dealer that would
serve as a ``give-up'' on an away trading center; and (3) an agreement
between the Exchange and the Routing Service Provider, pursuant to
which the Exchange would transmit to the Routing Service Provider
orders for outbound routing, with embedded routing instructions as
determined by the STOC System, which orders would then be routed via
the Routing Service Provider's connectivity to the appropriate market
centers for automatic execution.\18\ With respect to these routing
services, CBOE would establish and maintain procedures and internal
controls reasonably designed to adequately restrict the flow of
confidential and proprietary information between the Exchange
(including its facilities) and the Routing Service Provider. To the
extent the Routing Service Provider reasonably receives confidential
and proprietary information, its use of such information would be
restricted to legitimate business purposes necessary for providing
routing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Prior to that time, however, CBOE would access better-
priced quotations through the ITS Plan (or its successor). Under
previously approved STOC rules, when STOC receives a marketable
order that cannot be executed without causing a trade-through (and
assuming that the order is not an IOC order), the system will
display the order to market participants at the NBBO price for a
short time (three seconds or less, to be determined by the
Exchange's STOC Trading Committee). If no market participant ``steps
up'' to the NBBO during the display period, the system will route
the order to the STOC DPM for manual handling. The STOC DPM may
either itself step up to the NBBO price and execute the order, or
route the order via the ITS Plan (or its successor) to the other
market(s) disseminating the NBBO. If a better price becomes
available prior to the DPM routing away, such better price must be
taken into account by the DPM. See CBOE Rule 52.6.
    \18\ See proposed CBOE Rule 52.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Exchange has proposed a change to CBOE Rule
53.56(b)(6). This provision sets forth the obligation of a designated
primary market-maker on the STOC System (``STOC DPM'') \19\ to act as
agent for orders that are not executed on the system because CBOE is
not at the NBBO, and requires the STOC DPM to accord priority to such
public customer orders over the STOC DPM's principal transactions. In
Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes to delete language that permits
the STOC DPM to trade on parity with the public customer order the STOC
DPM represents as agent in this situation if the customer consents to
giving up its priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See CBOE Rule 53.50 (defining STOC DPM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange has proposed to delete
portions of existing CBOE Rules 52.1(d) and 53.24(b) relating to the
priority of automatically regenerated quotations of STOC market-makers.
As a result, an automatically regenerated quotation of a STOC market-
maker would be assigned the same priority that a newly generated
quotation by the market-maker would have at the time of regeneration.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the Commission believes that
the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\21\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to facilitate transactions in securities; to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system; and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission also finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\22\ which
prohibits an exchange's rules from imposing a burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section 11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act,\23\ in which Congress found that it is
in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure: (1)
Economically efficient execution of securities transactions; (2) fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets, and markets other than exchange markets; (3)
the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with
respect to quotations and transactions in securities; (4) the
practicability of brokers executing investors' orders in the best
market; and (5) an opportunity for investors' orders to be executed
without the participation of a dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission did not receive any comments on the proposal. This
order approves the rule change, as amended.

 A. Compliance With Regulation NMS

1. Automated Quotations/Automated Trading Center
    CBOE seeks to qualify as an automated trading center under
Regulation NMS. To do so, an exchange must display automated
quotations.\24\ An automated quotation is a quotation displayed by a
trading center that, among other things, permits an incoming order to
be marked immediate-or-cancel, immediately and automatically executes
an order so marked against the displayed quotation or cancels without
routing elsewhere, immediately transmits a response, and immediately
and automatically displays information that updates the displayed
quotation to reflect any change to its material terms.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(4)(i).
    \25\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rules are
consistent with the requirements of Regulation NMS with respect to
automated quotations. CBOE Rule 51.8(g)(4) provides for submission of
IOC orders that are either immediately executed (in whole or in part)
or canceled. Moreover, CBOE Rule 52.6 has been amended to clarify that
orders marked IOC will not be delayed for potential price improvement
on the STOC System. Automated trading centers are also required to
identify all quotations other than automated quotations as manual
quotations, and to adopt reasonable standards limiting when the
exchange's quotations change to manual quotations.\26\ CBOE has elected
not to display manual quotations, but rather would cease disseminating
quotations when a technical failure renders it unable to display
automated quotations. The Commission finds that CBOE's election not to
disseminate quotations when its quotations are not automated is
consistent with the Act in general, and with Regulation NMS in
particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Protection of Automated Quotations
    The Order Protection Rule requires trading centers to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs on that trading center of
protected quotations in NMS stocks, unless an exception applies.\27\
The provisions discussed below relate to the protection of automated
quotations by the STOC System.
a. Intermarket Sweep Order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 17 CFR 242.611(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS details the requirement for an
ISO functionality that allows other industry participants to meet the
requirements of the Order Protection Rule. CBOE's proposed rules define
an ISO as a limit

order in an NMS stock that is received by the system from a member
which is to be executed: (1) Immediately at the time such order is
received; (2) without regard for better-priced protected quotations
displayed at one or more other market centers; and (3) at prices equal
to or better than the limit price, with any portion not so executed to
be treated as canceled.\28\ The Commission believes that CBOE's
proposed definition of intermarket sweep order is consistent with the
requirements of Regulation NMS and thus is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ However, if an order is received through the communications
network operated pursuant to the ITS Plan or any successor to the
ITS Plan, the order would trade only at a single price. See proposed
CBOE Rule 51.8(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Routing of Orders
    As described above, the Exchange would enter into agreements that
govern the routing of orders to away markets displaying better-priced
protected quotations.\29\ Proposed CBOE Rule 52.10 describes the
arrangement between the Exchange and a Routing Service Provider. The
Commission believes that engaging a Routing Service Provider, as set
forth in the rule, is a reasonable means of promoting compliance with
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. The Exchange would be responsible for
routing decisions and would retain control of the routing logic. The
Commission also notes that the rule contemplates procedures and
internal controls designed to protect confidential and proprietary
information, which should help ensure that the Routing Service Provider
does not misuse routing information obtained from the Exchange. In
addition, the rule requires the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Exchange members and other persons
using the Exchange's facilities, and forbids unfair discrimination in
connection with the routing services provided by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Exchange intends to enter into the routing agreements
described in proposed CBOE Rule 52.10 prior to the ``Trading Phase
Date'' of February 5, 2007. See Regulation NMS Compliance Date
Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until such time as the Exchange enters into a routing agreement
with a Routing Service Provider, CBOE would access better priced
quotations through the ITS Plan (or its successor).\30\ Marketable
orders that the system cannot execute at the NBBO (with the exception
of IOC orders) are routed to the STOC DPM for manual handling. The STOC
DPM may either step up to the NBBO price and execute the order, or
route the order via the ITS Plan (or its successor) to the other
market(s) disseminating better-priced quotations, as required by the
ITS Plan.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 17.
    \31\ See CBOE Rule 52.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that CBOE's order routing rules are
reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs on the STOC System, and
therefore are consistent with the Exchange Act and Regulation NMS.
c. Self-Help
    Paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 611 permits a trade-through of a protected
quotation if the trading center displaying the protected quotation was
experiencing a failure, material delay, or malfunction of its systems
or equipment when the trade-through occurred. The Commission stated in
the Regulation NMS Adopting Release that, ``th[is] exception gives
trading centers a self-help remedy if another trading center repeatedly
fails to provide an immediate response (within one second) to incoming
orders attempting to access its quotes.''\32\ The Commission believes
that proposed CBOE Rule 52.13(b), which provides that the Exchange may,
subject to certain conditions, bypass the quotations displayed by
another trading center if such trading center repeatedly fails to
respond within one second to orders attempting to access such trading
center's protected quotations, is reasonably designed to allow CBOE to
invoke self-help in a manner consistent with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS
and is, therefore, consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37535 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Outbound ISOs and the Identification of Permissible Trade-Throughs
    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed a new rule governing
generation of outbound ISOs by the STOC System. The system would
generate an outbound ISO to any away trading center displaying a
protected quotation simultaneously with the execution of a transaction
on the Exchange at a price inferior to a protected quotation, unless a
specified exception to the Order Protection Rule applies.\33\ The
proposed rule also requires the Exchange to identify all trades
executed pursuant to an exception to or exemption from the Order
Protection Rule in accordance with specifications approved by the
operating committee of the relevant national market system plan.\34\
The provision of the rule requiring identification of trade-through
exceptions is designed to create uniformity across the markets
regarding how permissible trade-throughs are reported, and should
create more transparency for investors and regulators. The Commission
believes, therefore, that proposed CBOE Rule 52.7 furthers the public
interest and is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed CBOE Rule 52.7(a). The permitted exceptions in
the Exchange's rule are consistent with those set forth in Rule 611
of Regulation NMS. See 17 CFR 242.611(b).
    \34\ In addition, if a trade is executed pursuant to both the
intermarket sweep order exception of Rule 611(b)(5) or (6) and the
self-help exception of Rule 611(b)(1), such trade shall be
identified as executed pursuant to the intermarket sweep order
exception. See proposed CBOE Rule 52.7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Access Rule
    Paragraph (a) of the Access Rule \35\ prohibits a national
securities exchange from imposing unfairly discriminatory terms that
prevent or inhibit any person from obtaining efficient access through a
member of the exchange to a quotation in an NMS stock displayed through
the SRO quoting facility. The Commission believes that the STOC rules
and the STOC System have been reasonably designed to meet the standard
in paragraph (a) of the Access Rule. In addition, paragraph (d) of the
Access Rule \36\ requires a national securities exchange to establish,
maintain, and enforce rules that, among other things, require its
members reasonably to avoid displaying quotations that lock or cross
any protected quotation in an NMS stock and prohibit its members from
engaging in a pattern or practice of doing so. Proposed CBOE Rule 52.12
requires members of the Exchange to reasonably avoid displaying, and to
not engage in a practice of displaying, any quotations that lock or
cross a protected quotation, and any manual quotations that lock or
cross a quotation previously disseminated pursuant to an effective
national market system plan, subject to certain limited exceptions. The
Commission believes that this rule is consistent with Rule 610(d) of
Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 242.610(a).
    \36\ 17 CFR 242.610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\37\ the Commission finds
good cause for approving the amended proposal prior to the thirtieth
day after the publication of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register.
In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal: (1) To add
proposed CBOE Rule 52.7, relating to the generation of outbound ISOs
and the identification of trade-through exceptions; (2) to clarify
that, until the Exchange's automated

outbound routing capabilities are in place, the STOC System will route
certain non-IOC orders to the STOC DPM for manual handling; (3) to
clarify proposed CBOE Rule 52.10 regarding the Exchange's planned order
routing arrangements; (4) to delete language from CBOE Rule 53.56(b)(6)
that allows a STOC DPM who is acting as agent for a customer order that
is not executed on the system because there is a better price on
another exchange to be on parity with the customer if the customer
consents; (5) to delete portions of CBOE Rules 52.1(d) and 53.24(b)
relating to the priority of automatically regenerated quotations of
STOC market-makers; and (6) to make additional non-substantive changes
to the proposed rule text. These changes do not raise any novel or
substantive regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds good
cause for approving the proposal, with these changes, on an accelerated
basis. Doing so will help enable the Exchange to meet the requirements
of Regulation NMS in an expeditious manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments Concerning Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether it is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2006-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
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-CBOE-2006-70 and should be submitted on or before
October 25, 2006.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\38\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2006-70), as
amended, is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16364 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


P-16-0420 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-16-0420 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-16-0420 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-16-0420 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-16-0420 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-16-0420 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-16-0420 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-16-0420 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


May 15, 2008

Peter Caulkins

Associate Director

Special Review and Reregistration Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W.

Mail Code: 7508P

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Peter:

Thank you for your memorandum of April 8, 2008, regarding the USDA
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) research related to permeability of
plastic films used for soil fumigation.

Nearly all the permeability data that ARS has collected specific to
individual brands of films has come from two area-wide projects that ARS
has funded, one in Florida and other southeastern states and the other
in California, Oregon, and Washington.  Most of these large-scale,
on-farm tests have been through 1 year of testing, although some are
starting new this year.  The tests are designed to test the efficacy of
methyl bromide alternatives under actual farming conditions and to
transfer methyl bromide alternatives to farmers.  ARS expects to
continue funding these projects for a total of 5 years.  As part of
these tests and to better understand results of tests with different
alternative fumigants and different films, ARS is conducting ongoing
tests to determine the permeability of the films being used in field
trials.  ARS has resources to test only those specific films that will
be used in experiments as part of the area wide project and has no plans
to do extensive testing of all brands or all types of films within any
specific brand.  A conservative estimate is that ARS will test only
about 10 percent of existing films, and new films are constantly being
developed.

Given that the ARS research projects are just getting under way, that
considerable time is necessary for replication over location and time,
and that at least several months are needed for the review that occurs
as a part of the publication process, it doesn’t seem likely that the
limited data ARS is collecting would be available within a time frame
useful for EPA to use in its regulatory setting process.  And as alluded
to above, the usefulness of ARS data would be minimal because of the
limited nature of tests relative to the number and types of films
included in our field trials; that films are not tested over a range of
environmental conditions that might affect their fumigant permeability
and that the experimental designs were specifically written to test the
efficacy of alternative fumigants and other methyl bromide alternatives,
not films.

ARS understands that the new EPA fumigant regulations currently being
written are of great importance to our customers, the farmers.  In the
spirit of the close cooperation that has existed between ARS and EPA for
many years with respect to the methyl bromide issues and to help
facilitate adoption of alternatives by farmers, I can assure you of
ARS’ willingness to assist EPA in any way we can, consistent with our
mission and resources.  As an example of the type of assistance that
might be useful to you, ARS might provide samples of film taken from our
experiments for you to test in your laboratories or by contractors.  An
advantage of this collaboration would be that the film would have been
installed using regular farming practices and exposed to existing
environmental factors just as would happen during normal farming
activity.  ARS would be happy to discuss sampling and weathering
parameters with EPA scientists if that would be useful and would collect
the samples however EPA specified.

ARS permeability testing is being conducted in the laboratory of Dr.
Scott Yates at the ARS laboratory in Riverside, California, using a
method he published.  As you know, there are other methods available to
conduct permeability tests.  If EPA chose to use Scott’s method, Scott
would be happy to provide technical assistance to EPA scientists or
contractors, if requested by EPA, to allow EPA to get up to speed
quickly.

Please call me if you have questions or comments or if you would like to
discuss further how ARS might assist you in obtaining the information
you require.

Sincerely,

/s/

Kenneth W. Vick

Senior National Program Leader

Post Harvest Entomology

United States Department of Agriculture

Research, Education, and Economics

 National Program Staff

George Washington Carver Center ( 5601 Sunnyside Avenue

Beltsville, MD.  20705-5148

An Equal Opportunity Employer


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47492-47494]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18229]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OW-2021-0201; FRL-8821-01-R8]

Notice of Proposed Reissuance of the NPDES General Permits for
Wastewater Lagoon Systems in Indian Country in EPA, Region 8

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed draft permits and request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 8 (R8) is providing for comment the draft 2021
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits
for Wastewater Lagoon Systems in Indian Country in R8. These draft
permits are renewals of existing permits and will authorize discharge
of wastewater from lagoons located in R8 Indian country in accordance
with the terms and conditions described therein. EPA proposes to issue
these permits for five (5) years and is seeking public comment on the
draft permits.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this document, identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OW-2021-0201, may be submitted (preferred method) to the
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov by following the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the public notice, docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Organize comments by referencing the part of the permit or fact
sheet by section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the DATES section (above).
    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. Additionally, if technical difficulties are
experienced submitting through this site, comments may be emailed to
Alysia Tien at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>using subject line ``Region 8 Lagoon
General Permit Public Comment''. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Refer
to the General Information part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below if you intend to submit information considered CBI.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Due to current office procedures related to the COVID-19 outbreak,
at this time there is no opportunity to submit comments via regular
mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For requests to make alternative
arrangements for access to the docket or comment submission, please
email or call: Alysia Tien, Wastewater Section,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Publicly available docket materials related to the
draft permits may be found in the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OW-2021-0201.
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, if applicable, would be available only in hard copy. However,
to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for this action we do not
plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Public Comment Information

    Any interested person may submit comments on the draft permits
using the

mechanisms listed above. As of the date of this document, a public
hearing has not been scheduled. Within the comment period, interested
persons may also submit a request, to the contact listed above, that
EPA hold a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, concerning the
draft permits. Such requests shall state the nature of the issues
proposed to be raised at the hearing. A public hearing may be held at
least thirty (30) days after public notice if the Regional
Administrator finds that response to this document indicates
significant public interest. All comments and requests for public
hearings must be received in writing by the close of the public comment
period. At the time of the final decision on these draft permits, EPA
will respond to all significant comments and make responses available
in the docket after the PN period has closed, within the final fact
sheet associated with the final permits.

B. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this CBI to EPA through http://regulations.gov or
email. If you intend to submit CBI information, please email or call:
Alysia Tien, Wastewater Section,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to make arrangements prior to submission. When submitting, clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

II. Background

    The proposed draft permits are similar to the existing permits and
will authorize discharge of wastewater in accordance with the terms and
conditions described therein. The fact sheet for the draft permits is
also provided, in the docket listed above, and provides detailed
information on: The decisions used to set limitations, the specific
geographic areas covered by the draft permits, information on
monitoring schedules, inspection requirements, and other regulatory
decisions or requirements.
    Issuance of these permits will cover discharges from wastewater
lagoon systems located in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. The draft permits are geographic by state,
with the permit coverage specified by Indian reservations in the state
[specific permit coverage areas below]; any land held in trust by the
United States for an Indian tribe; and any other areas which are Indian
country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.

III. Summary of Draft Permits

    Coverage under the draft permits will be limited to lagoon systems
treating primarily domestic wastewater and will include two categories
of coverage; discharging lagoons (DIS), and lagoons expected to have no
discharge but with the potential to discharge (NODIS). The effluent
limitations for discharging lagoons are primarily based on the Federal
Secondary Treatment Regulation (40 CFR part 133). However, if more
stringent and/or additional effluent limitations were considered
necessary to comply with applicable water quality standards, etc.,
those limitations and the basis for them are explained in the fact
sheet and will be imposed by written notification to the permittee.
Lagoon systems under the NODIS category are required to have no
discharge except in accordance with the specific provisions of the
permit (e.g., bypass). Self-monitoring, operation and maintenance,
routine inspection and other requirements are also included in the
draft permits. Where tribes have Clean Water Act (CWA) section
401(a)(1) certification authority, EPA has requested certification that
the draft permits comply with applicable provisions of the CWA and any
currently approved tribal water quality standard, in accordance with
processes outlined in 40 CFR part 124.

Permit Coverage Has Been Designated as Follows for the Draft Permits

     Colorado (COG587###): Indian country, as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151, located in Colorado generally includes (1) lands within
the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located
within Colorado, in part or in full: The Southern Ute Indian
Reservation and the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation; (2) any land held in
trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and (3) any other areas
that are ``Indian country'' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. In
addition to Indian country in Colorado, the portion of the Ute Mountain
Ute Reservation located in New Mexico and any other Indian country
lands in New Mexico and Utah held in trust by the United States for the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe or its members.
     Montana (MTG589###): Indian country, as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151, located in Montana generally includes (1) lands within the
exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within
Montana: The Blackfeet Indian Reservation, the Crow Indian Reservation,
the Flathead Reservation, the Fort Belknap Reservation, the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, and the
Rocky Boy's Reservation; (2) any land held in trust by the United
States for an Indian tribe; and (3) any other areas that are ``Indian
country'' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.
     North Dakota (NDG589###): Indian country, as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151, located in North Dakota generally includes (1) lands
within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations
located within North Dakota, in part or in full: The Fort Berthold
Indian Reservation, the Spirit Lake Reservation, the Standing Rock
Sioux Reservation, and the Turtle Mountain Reservation; (2) any land
held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe; and (3) any
other areas that are ``Indian country'' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
1151. In addition to Indian country in North Dakota, the portion of the
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation located in South Dakota and any other
Indian country lands held in trust by the United States for the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe or its members in South Dakota.
    The North Dakota draft permit covers the above identified Indian
country except as provided below: Not including any Indian country
lands in North Dakota held in trust by the United States for the
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe or its members, which are covered under
the South Dakota general permit (SDG589###).
     South Dakota (SDG589###): Indian country, as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151, located in South Dakota generally includes (1) lands
within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations
located within South Dakota, in part or in full: The Cheyenne River
Reservation, the Crow Creek Reservation, the Flandreau Indian
Reservation, the Lower Brule Reservation, the Pine Ridge Reservation,
the Rosebud Indian Reservation, the Standing Rock Reservation, and the
Yankton Reservation (subject to federal court decisions removing
certain lands from Indian country status within the Yankton
Reservation); (2) any land held in trust by the United States for an
Indian tribe; and (3) any other areas that are ``Indian country''
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. In addition to Indian country in
South Dakota, Indian country lands in North Dakota held in trust by the
United States for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe or its members, and
the portion of the Pine

Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe located in Nebraska and any
other Indian country lands in Nebraska held in trust by the United
States for the Oglala Sioux Tribe or its members.
    The South Dakota draft permit covers the above identified Indian
country except as provided below: Not including the portion of the
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation located in South Dakota and any other
Indian country lands in South Dakota held in trust by the United States
for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe or its members, which are covered
under the North Dakota general permit (NDG589###).
     Utah (UTG589###): Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
1151, located in Utah generally includes (1) lands within the exterior
boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within Utah, in
part or in full: The Goshute Reservation, the Navajo Indian
Reservation, the reservation lands of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
(Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of
Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes),
the Skull Valley Indian Reservation, the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
(subject to federal court decisions removing certain lands from Indian
country status within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation), and the
Washakie Reservation; (2) any land held in trust by the United States
for an Indian tribe; and (3) any other areas that are ``Indian
country'' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.
    The Utah draft permit covers the above identified Indian country
except as provided below: Not including any Indian country lands in
Utah held in trust by the United States for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
or its members, which are covered under the Colorado general permit
(COG587###). Not including the portions of the Goshute Reservation and
the Navajo Indian Reservation in Utah, or any other Indian country
lands in Utah held in trust by the United States for the Navajo Nation
or its members or for the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute
Reservation or its members, which are regulated by EPA Region 9.
     Wyoming (WYG589###): Indian country, as defined at 18
U.S.C. 1151, located in Wyoming generally includes any lands within the
exterior boundaries of the Wind River Indian Reservation (subject to
Wyoming v. EPA, 875 F.3d 505 (10th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct.
2677 (2018)); any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian
tribe; and any other areas that are ``Indian country'' within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.

IV. Other Legal Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not subject to submission to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for formal review.

B. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA conducted an EJ Analysis, which is described in Section VII of
the fact sheet. EPA has preliminarily determined that the draft permits
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations based on
the effluent limits and reporting requirements contained therein. EPA
requests comment on this preliminary determination and/or any
modifications EPA could make to the proposed permits to address EJ
concerns.
    Authority: CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

    Dated: August 19, 2021.
Judy Bloom,
Manager, Clean Water Branch.
[FR Doc. 2021-18229 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P