[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 23753-23754]
[DOCID:fr04my10-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

April 27, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF10-13-000.
    Applicants: Cornell University.
    Description: Self Certification of Cogeneration Facility Cornell
University (NY).
    Filed Date: 10/08/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091008-5041.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-88-000.
    Applicants: Little Sisters of the Poor, Jeanne Jugan Residence.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Qualifying Facility
Status for a proposed Cogeneration Facility at Little Sisters of the
Poor, Jeanne Jugan Residence.
    Filed Date: 11/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091106-0087.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-145-000.
    Applicants: Covenant Health Systems, Inc.
    Description: Self Certification Notice of Covenant Health Systems.
    Filed Date: 12/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091201-5153.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-272-000.
    Applicants: St. Mary's Women and Children's Center.
    Description: Qualifying Facility (QF) Application for the St.
Mary's Women and Children's Center Cogeneration System in Dorchester,
MA.
    Filed Date: 01/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100121-5016.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-290-000.
    Applicants: Growpro Inc.
    Description: Self Certification Notice of Growpro Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100128-5053.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-327-000.
    Applicants: Beaufort Regional Health System.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a

Cogeneration Facility of PowerSecure Inc. for Beaufort Regional Health
System.
    Filed Date: 02/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100223-5132.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-338-000.
    Applicants: Suburban Athletic Club.
    Description: Self Certification Notice of Suburban Athletic Club.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100302-5027.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-365-000; QF10-366-000.
    Applicants: Roger Grimes; Belk Inc.
    Description: Belk, Inc. Qualifying Facility Application or PURPA
Energy Utility Filing.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100317-5093.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-415-000.
    Applicants: Massachusetts Department of Corrections Bridgewater
Cogeneration Plant.
    Description: Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for an
Existing or a Proposed Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100412-5035.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-418-000.
    Applicants: The Trustees of Smith College.
    Description: Form 556 of Smith College.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100413-5115.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-422-000.
    Applicants: Fisher, Dave.
    Description: Notice of Certification of Qualifying Facility Status
for an Existing or a Proposed Small Power Production or Cogeneration
Facility for Dave Fisher.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100414-5036.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-427-000.
    Applicants: Rigo, Jr., Anthony.
    Description: Baker Renewable Energy for 556 of Anthony Rigo Jr.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100415-5069.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-429-000.
    Applicants: Green, Matthew.
    Description: Baker Renewable Energy Form 556 of Matthew Green.
    Filed Date: 04/16/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100416-5193.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF10-431-000.
    Applicants: Oregon State University.
    Description: Self-Certification of a nominal 6.5 MW cogeneration
facility on the Oregon State University campus.
    Filed Date: 04/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100419-5191.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    A notice of self-certification or self-recertification does not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status; a notice
of self-certification or self-recertification provides notice that the
entity making the filing has determined the Facility meets the
applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any person seeking to
challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion
pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10350 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26385-26386]
[DOCID:fr09my08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13027-000]

Stennis Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

May 2, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13027-000.
    c. Date filed: September 20, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Stennis Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Stennis Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in Lowndes County,
Mississippi. It would use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Stennis
Lock and Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13027-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Stennis Lock and Dam and operated in a run-of-river
mode would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse and switchyard; (2) three
turbine/generator units with a combined installed capacity of 19
megawatts; (3) a new 2-mile-long above ground 46-kilovolt transmission
line extending from the switchyard to an interconnection point with the
local utility's distribution system; and (4) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed Stennis Lock and Dam Project would have an average annual
generation of 58 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10303 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57418-57424]
[DOCID:fr06no09-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0747; SW-FRL-8972-9]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
granting a petition to exclude (or ``delist'') wastewater treatment
plant sludges from conversion coating on aluminum generated at the
Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP), Sterling Heights, Michigan from
the list of hazardous wastes. SHAP is owned by Old Carco LLC (formerly
Chrysler LLC, formerly DaimlerChrysler) and operated by Chrysler Group
LLC.
    This action conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a lined
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste. The exclusion was proposed on
March 7, 2002 as part of an expedited process to evaluate this waste
under a pilot project developed with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The rule also imposes testing conditions
for waste generated in the future to ensure that this waste continues
to qualify for delisting.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0747. The electronic docket contains all relevant
documents created after this action was proposed as well as a selection
of pertinent documents from the original paper docket for the proposed
rule, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Publicly available materials from Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2009-0747 are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. Materials from the original paper
docket, Docket ID No. R5-MIECOS-01, are also available in hard copy.
You can view and copy materials from both dockets at the Records
Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone
Todd Ramaly at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals
Division, (Mail Code: LR-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (312)
353-4788; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Background
    A. What is a delisting petition?
    B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?
    C. What waste did SHAP petition to delist?
II. The Expedited Process for Delisting
    A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?
    B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?
III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition
    A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?
    B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
    A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
    B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA
V. Final Rule Granting This Petition
    A. What decision is EPA finalizing?
    B. What are the terms of this exclusion?
    C. When is the delisting effective?
    D. How does this action affect the states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

    A delisting petition is a request from a generator to exclude waste
from the list of hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations. In a
delisting petition, the petitioner must show that waste generated at a
particular facility does not meet any of the criteria for which EPA
listed the waste as set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) 261.11 and the background document for the waste. In addition,
a petitioner must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for
us to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was
listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 260.22, 42
United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f) and the background documents for a
listed waste.
    Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm that their waste
remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even
if EPA has ``delisted'' the wastes and to ensure that future generated
wastes meet the conditions set.

B. What regulations allow a waste to be delisted?

    Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may
petition the EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by
excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to
petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts

260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40 CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a
generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from the lists of hazardous wastes on a ``generator specific''
basis.

C. What waste did SHAP petition to delist?

    SHAP petitioned to exclude wastewater treatment sludges resulting
from a zinc phosphating conversion coating process on car and truck
bodies, which have aluminum components. When treated, wastewater from
conversion coating on aluminum results in a listed waste, F019. The
wastewater from the phosphating process entering the wastewater
treatment plant combines with wastewaters from other operations at the
plant including cleaning and rinsing operations, electrocoating
processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor scrubbing. Wastewaters
include alkaline cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents, rinse
conditioners from cleaning operations and overflows and rinse water
from electrocoating. All sludge from the treatment of this wastewater
is regulated as RCRA hazardous waste F019.

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why was the expedited process developed for this waste?

    Automobile manufacturers are adding aluminum components to
automobile and light truck bodies. When aluminum is conversion coated
in a zinc phosphating process, the resulting wastewater treatment
sludge must be managed as EPA hazardous waste F019. F019 wastes
generated at other auto assembly plants using the same zinc phosphating
and wastewater treatment processes have been shown to be nonhazardous.
    This similarity of manufacturing processes and the resultant wastes
provides an opportunity for the automobile industry to be more
efficient in submitting delisting petitions and for EPA to be more
efficient in evaluating them. Efficiency may be gained and time saved
by using a standardized approach for gathering, submitting and
evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with MDEQ, developed a
pilot project to expedite the delisting process. This approach to
making delisting determinations for this group of facilities is
efficient while still being consistent with current laws and
regulations and protective of human health and the environment.
    By removing regulatory controls under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the
use of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that incorporating aluminum in
cars will be advantageous to the environment since lighter cars are
capable of achieving better fuel economy.

B. What is the expedited process to delist F019?

    The expedited process to delist F019 is an approach developed
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MDEQ for gathering and
evaluating data in support of multiple petitions from automobile
assembly plants. The expedited delisting process is applicable to
wastes generated by automobile and light truck assembly plants in the
State of Michigan which use a similar manufacturing process and
generate similar F019 waste.
    Based on available historical data and other information, the
expedited process identified 70 constituents which might be of concern
in the waste and provides that the F019 sludge generated by automobile
assembly plants may be delisted if the levels of the 70 constituents do
not exceed the allowable levels established for each constituent in
this rulemaking. The maximum annual quantity of waste generated by any
single facility that may be covered by an expedited delisting is 3,000
cubic yards. Delisting concentrations were also proposed for smaller
quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic yards per year.

III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition

A. What information was submitted in support of this petition?

    SHAP submitted certification that its process was consistent with
the process described in the MOU between Region 5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002. One additional non-chromium sealer was identified
by SHAP. Based on the provided Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), the
additional sealer does not appear to add new hazardous constituents to
the process. The facility also asserted that its waste does not meet
the criteria for which F019 waste was listed and there are no other
factors that might cause the waste to be hazardous.
    To support its exclusion demonstration, SHAP collected six samples
representing waste generated over six discreet one-week periods
beginning March 7 and ending April 17, 2007. SHAP stored six 55-gallon
drums of the sludge representative of each week the waste was generated
and collected composite and grab samples from each of the drums on
April 18, 2007. Each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total analyses of 69
constituents of concern; (2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311, analyses of 69 constituents of concern; (3)
oil and grease; and (4) leachable metals using the Extraction Procedure
for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method 1330A, in lieu of Method 1311 if
a sample contained more than 1% oil and grease. In addition, a
determination was made that the waste was not ignitable, corrosive or
reactive (see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). Although the expedited delisting
project originally required analysis of 70 constituents, analysis of
acrylamide required extreme methods to achieve a detection level at the
level of concern and no acrylamide was detected in any sample analyzed
by the original facilities participating in the expedited delisting
project. Thus, the Agency decided it would not be appropriate to
require analysis for acrylamide. Also, SHAP analyzed for total sulfide
and total cyanide which supported the narrative determination of non-
reactivity required in 40 CFR 261.23. With the exception of the minor
changes described above, all sampling and analyses were done in
accordance with the sampling and analysis plan, which is an appendix to
the MOU and is available in the docket for this rule.
    The maximum concentrations of constituents detected in any sample
of the waste (in milligrams per kilogram--mg/kg) and in a TCLP or OWEP
analysis of that waste (in milligrams per liter--mg/L) are summarized
in the following table. The data submitted included the appropriate
quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) information validated by
a third party.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum observed concentration         Maximum allowable
                                 --------------------------------          concentration
      Constituent detected                                       --------------------------------  GW  ([mu]g/L)
                                   Total (mg/kg)    TCLP (mg/L)    Total (mg/kg)  TCLP\*\ (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.........................           2.7 J          0.38 J              NA             171           3,750

Acetonitrile....................            <2.5        0.0012 J              NA            29.3             643
Benzene.........................          0.14 J          0.0095              NA       \1\ 0.057             2.5
Butanol.........................             <25          0.15 J              NA             171           3,758
Chloroform......................            <0.5         0.002 J           5,080          0.0583            1.35
Ethylbenzene....................           0.3 J          0.0093              NA            31.9             700
Formaldehyde....................              37             1.8             535              63           1,380
methyl ethyl ketone.............            <2.5         0.021 J              NA             200          22,545
methyl isobutyl ketone..........            <2.5         0.023 J              NA             137           3,000
methylene chloride..............          0.56 J          0.0056              NA           0.216               5
Styrene.........................            <0.5          0.0074              NA            4.56             100
Toluene.........................             2.0            0.12              NA            45.6           1,000
Xylene..........................             3.0           0.059              NA             456          10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate......           8.5 J       0.00072 J              NA          0.0671            1.47
butyl benzyl phthalate..........            <7.5       0.00023 J              NA            69.6           1,448
2,4-dinitrotoluene..............            <1.5         0.00002              NA          0.0049           0.107
di-n-octyl phthalate............           3.3 J          <0.002              NA          0.0839           1.296
Hexachlorobenzene...............          <0.013         0.00002            1.12       0.0000724         0.00168
Hexachlorobutadiene.............            <1.5         0.00002             212          0.0072           0.167
Naphthalene.....................          0.36 J          0.0041              NA     \2\ 0.00822             245
2-methylphenol..................            <1.5           0.002              NA            85.5           1,870
4-methylphenol..................            <1.5          0.12 J              NA            8.55             187
Pentachlorophenol...............            <1.5           0.002           1,960     \3\ 0.00607           0.071
Pyridine........................            <3.0       0.00098 J              NA            1.71          37.575
2,4,5-trichlorophenol...........          0.21 J          <0.001              NA            68.6           1,503
2,4,6-trichlorophenol...........          0.68 J          <0.001              NA           0.207             4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................             <20        0.0028 J              NA           0.494               6
Arsenic.........................             <50        0.0051 J           7,740         0.00224            4.87
Barium..........................              77          0.11 J              NA             100           2,000
Beryllium.......................         0.074 J        0.0006 J              NA           0.998              40
Cadmium.........................             1.6        0.0074 J              NA            0.36               5
Chromium........................              76         0.024 J              NA            3.71             100
Cobalt..........................             3.5        0.0068 J              NA              54           2,248
Lead............................             5.1           <0.16              NA             5.0              15
Mercury.........................          0.0091       <0.0009 J            6.34             0.2               2
Nickel..........................             840             8.5              NA            67.8             750
Selenium........................             <20        0.0028 J              NA             1.0              50
Silver..........................             2.5           <0.06              NA             5.0             187
Thallium........................             <20        0.0003 J         \4\ 247           0.211               2
Tin.............................           250 J             6.1              NA             540          22,476
Vanadium........................           1.8 J           <0.05              NA            50.6             263
Zinc............................           5,500             5.6              NA             673          11,220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Or OWEP as applicable.
< Not detected at the specified concentration.
NA Not applicable.
J Estimated.
\1\ Proposed maximum concentration (0.109 mg/L) adjusted for updated toxicity data.
\2\ Proposed maximum concentration (11.2 mg/L) adjusted for inhalation carcinogenicity.
\3\ Proposed maximum concentration (0.00307 mg/L) adjusted due to exposure time correction.
\4\ Maximum total (247 mg/kg) replacing proposed ``NA'' due to bioaccumulation factor entry.

B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?

    EPA compared the analytical results submitted by SHAP to the
maximum allowable concentrations set forth in the proposed rule (67 FR
10341, March 7, 2002) or as updated below. The maximum allowable
concentrations for constituents detected in the waste or a TCLP extract
of the waste are summarized in the table above, along with the highest
observed concentration. The table also includes the maximum allowable
concentrations in groundwater at a potential receptor well (in
micrograms per liter--[mu]g/L), as evaluated by the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS). These concentrations are the more
conservative of either the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) or the health-based value calculated by DRAS based on the
target cancer risk level of 10-\6\. For arsenic, the target
cancer risk was set at 10-\4\ in consideration of the MCL
and the potential for natural occurrence. The maximum allowable
groundwater concentration and delisting level for arsenic correspond to
a drinking water concentration less than one-half the current MCL of 10
[mu]g/L.
    Some of the maximum allowable concentrations have been updated to
reflect new toxicity data or in response

to a technical correction in the modeling. Specifically, the maximum
allowable leachate concentration for benzene was adjusted from 0.109
mg/L to 0.057 mg/L because the cancer slope factor for oral exposure
was increased from 0.029 kg[middot]day/mg to 0.055 kg[middot]day/mg.
The maximum allowable leachate concentration for naphthalene was
adjusted from 11.2 mg/L to 0.00822 mg/L due to adding an inhalation
calculation for carcinogenicity. The maximum allowable leachate
concentration for pentachlorophenol was adjusted from 0.00307 mg/L to
0.00607 to reflect a correction to exposure time in the dermal pathway
for children. A maximum allowable total concentration of 247 mg/kg for
thallium was added after the database was adjusted to include
bioaccumulation and ingestion of thallium in fish.
    EPA also used DRAS to estimate the aggregate cancer risk and hazard
index for constituents detected in the waste. The aggregate cancer risk
is the cumulative total of all individual constituent cancer risks. The
hazard index is a similar cumulative total of non-cancer effects. The
target aggregate cancer risk is 1x10-5 and the target hazard
index is one. The wastewater treatment plant sludge at SHAP met both of
these criteria based on maximum observed values using DRAS version 2,
the version in use when the SHAP waste samples were collected. A new
version of DRAS (version 3) has been released with current toxicity
data and extensive modeling updates. Although EPA did not base the
evaluation of SHAP waste on the new DRAS methodology, a screening of
the maximum observed concentrations with the new DRAS version showed
that the aggregate hazard index and cancer risks remain below target
levels.

IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion

A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?

    The EPA received public comments on the proposed rule published on
March 7, 2002 from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of
America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The Aluminum Association. All
commenters were supportive of the proposal and suggested expanding the
project and revising the listing.

B. Comments Received and Responses From EPA

    (1) Comment: EPA should revise the F019 listing to specify that
wastewater treatment sludges from zinc phosphating operations are not
within the scope of the listing. Data gathered as a result of the
Expedited Delisting Project, together with the available historical
data, should provide enough data to fully characterize this waste and
to justify a revision of the listing.
    EPA Response: On June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31756), the Agency amended the
F019 listing to exempt the wastewater treatment sludge generated from
zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used, in the automobile
assembly process and provided the waste is disposed in a landfill unit
subject to certain design criteria. The amendment has yet to be adopted
by the State of Michigan. The SHAP facility will likely be able to
comply with either the amended listing or the requirements of this
delisting.
    (2) Comment: EPA should issue an interpretive rule clarifying that
zinc phosphating operations are outside the scope of the F019 listing.
    EPA Response: See response to comment (1) above.
    (3) Comment: Automobile assembly facilities outside of Michigan
would like to take advantage of the precedent set by this expedited
delisting project to delist F019 generated by similar operations in
other states and regions.
    EPA Response: The Agency believes that the expedited delisting
procedures and requirements set forth in this proposal are appropriate
for similar automotive assembly facilities outside the State of
Michigan, subject to the discretion of the regulatory agency (state or
region).
    (4) Comment: Alternatives to landfilling like recycling should be
allowed within the petition process.
    EPA Response: The risk assessment model currently used by the
Agency does not predict the risks from exposure to waste that are
managed through recycling. EPA's conditional delisting policy is that
in order to reduce the uncertainty caused by potential unrestricted use
or management of delisted waste, delistings apply only to wastes
managed in the type of unit (e.g., ``a landfill'') modeled in the
delisting risk assessment. The Agency has no documented information to
indicate a market exists for recovering the metals in F019 waste from
motor vehicle manufacturers. See 73 FR 31756, 31762 (June 4, 2008). The
Agency notes that the exclusion is conditioned upon certain disposal,
sampling, and volume requirements. While the conditional exclusion
being promulgated today does not eliminate the possibility of
legitimate reuse of the sludge, the final rule does not address such
use.
    (5) Comment: Analytical methods should be specified in the pre-
approved common sampling plan instead of requiring each participant to
submit a site-specific list of methods.
    EPA Response: Allowing the petitioner to choose an analytical
method which meets the data quality objectives specific to the
delisting petition provides flexibility. Data quality objectives will
vary depending on the allowable concentrations that are a function of
the volume of petitioned waste. The Agency believes that the
flexibility of performance-based methods results in better data.
    (6) Comment: Detection limits should not be required prior to
sampling since they cannot be adequately predicted without a way to
estimate matrix effects.
    EPA Response: Although matrix effects cannot be assessed in advance
of laboratory analysis, a laboratory should be able to provide
estimated detection levels and reporting levels which are lower than,
or at least equal to, the allowable delisting concentration for each
constituent.
    (7) Comment: Since the process generating the sludge is extremely
stable, verification sampling should be conducted on an annual, instead
of quarterly, basis. The requirement that any process change is
promptly reported and the exclusion suspended until EPA gives written
approval that the delisting can continue is an adequate safeguard
justifying the decrease in sample event frequency.
    EPA Response: Verification data submitted in conjunction with past
delistings of this waste have shown significant variation on a
quarterly basis over longer periods of time. Annual sampling would not
detect such variations. Once enough verification data are collected to
support a statistical analysis, a change in the frequency of
verification sampling and/or sampling parameters may be considered.
    (8) Comment: The final Federal Register should make it clear that
assembly plants that manufacture light trucks are also eligible for the
project.
    EPA Response: Today's final rule specifically defines eligible
facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light trucks.
    (9) Comment: The table of maximum allowable levels in the March 7,
2002 proposed rule contains errors in the columns for vinyl chloride.
    EPA Response: A missing space or tab in the table caused the error.
The maximum allowable concentrations proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of
waste should have been 115 mg/kg total and 0.00234 mg/L TCLP.

V. Final Rule Granting This Petition

A. What decision is EPA finalizing?

    Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion to conditionally delist an
annual volume of 3,000 cubic yards of wastewater treatment plant
sludges generated at SHAP from conversion coating on aluminum.
    On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to exclude or delist this wastewater
treatment sludge from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and
accepted public comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA
considered all comments received, and we believe that this waste should
be excluded from hazardous waste control. After EPA proposed the
exclusion for SHAP in 2002, the Agency promulgated the Methods
Innovation Rule (MIR) (70 FR 34538, June 14, 2005). The MIR reformed
RCRA-related testing and monitoring by restricting requirements to use
the methods found in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,'' also known as ``SW-846,'' to those
situations where the method is the only one capable of measuring the
property (i.e., it is used to measure a method-defined parameter). In
addition, the MIR revised several conditional delistings to
specifically mention method-defined parameters incorporated by
reference at Sec.  260.11 consistent with the Office of Federal
Register's revised format for incorporation by reference. Therefore,
EPA is including a specific reference to SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A,
and 9071B (method-defined parameters) for the generation of the
leachate extract in the quarterly verification testing requirement for
the SHAP delisting. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of
the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than 1% of the waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must
be used for generation of the leaching extract if oil and grease
comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must be used for
determination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B
are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.

B. What are the terms of this exclusion?

    SHAP must dispose of the waste in a lined Subtitle D landfill which
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial
solid waste. SHAP must obtain and analyze on a quarterly basis a
representative sample of the waste. SHAP must verify that the
concentrations of the constituents of concern do not exceed the
allowable concentrations set forth in this exclusion. The list of
constituents for verification is a subset of those initially tested for
and is based on the concentrations detected relative to the allowable
concentrations. Two of the constituents selected for verification
required extraordinary analytical methods in order to achieve detection
limits at or below the delisting concentrations. Hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol are not expected to be significant components of the
petitioned waste, and standard analysis for verification will suffice.
    This exclusion applies only to a maximum annual volume of 3,000
cubic yards and is effective only if all conditions contained in this
rule are satisfied.

C. When is the delisting effective?

    This rule is effective November 6, 2009. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule
reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore,
is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

D. How does this action affect the states?

    Today's exclusion is being issued under the federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective in states
that have received authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Also, the exclusion may not be effective in states having a dual system
that includes federal RCRA requirements and their own requirements. EPA
allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally issued
exclusion from taking effect in the state. Because a dual system (that
is, both Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner's waste, we urge petitioners to contact the state regulatory
authority to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
If a participating facility transports the petitioned waste to or
manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, it must
obtain a delisting from that state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the state.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 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.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because
this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will 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, ``Federalism'', (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
    Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 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 as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it
is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not
involve technical standards; 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. As required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: October 5, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 the following wastestream is
added in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

                               Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facility                         Address                             Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Chrysler Group LLC at the Old    Sterling Heights, Michigan.....  Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, that are
 Carco LLC Sterling Heights                                        generated at Old Carco LLC's Sterling Heights
 Assembly Plant.                                                   Assembly Plant, (SHAP), Sterling Heights,
                                                                   Michigan by Chrysler Group LLC at a maximum
                                                                   annual rate of 3,000 cubic yards per year.
                                                                   The sludges must be disposed of in a lined
                                                                   landfill with leachate collection which is
                                                                   licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized
                                                                   to accept the delisted wastewater treatment
                                                                   sludges in accordance with 40 CFR part 258.
                                                                   The exclusion becomes effective as of
                                                                   November 6, 2009.
                                                                  1. Delisting Levels: The concentrations in a
                                                                   leachate extract of the waste measured in any
                                                                   sample must not exceed the following levels
                                                                   (mg/L): arsenic--0.22; nickel--67.8; benzene--
                                                                   0.057; hexachlorobenzene--0.0000724;
                                                                   naphthalene--0.00822; and pentachlorophenol--
                                                                   0.00607.
                                                                  2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify
                                                                   that the waste does not exceed the specified
                                                                   delisting levels, Chrysler Group LLC or Old
                                                                   Carco LLC must collect and analyze one
                                                                   representative sample of the waste on a
                                                                   quarterly basis. Sample collection and
                                                                   analyses, including quality control
                                                                   procedures, must be performed using
                                                                   appropriate methods. SW-846 Method 1311 must
                                                                   be used for generation of the leachate
                                                                   extract used in the testing of the delisting
                                                                   levels if oil and grease comprise less than
                                                                   1% of the waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must be
                                                                   used for generation of the leaching extract
                                                                   if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the
                                                                   waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must be used for
                                                                   determination of oil and grease. SW-846
                                                                   Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are
                                                                   incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
                                                                  3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Chrysler
                                                                   Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must notify the
                                                                   EPA in writing if the manufacturing process,
                                                                   the chemicals used in the manufacturing
                                                                   process, the treatment process, or the
                                                                   chemicals used in the treatment process
                                                                   change significantly. Chrysler Group LLC or
                                                                   Old Carco LLC must handle wastes generated
                                                                   after the process change as hazardous until
                                                                   it has demonstrated that the wastes continue
                                                                   to meet the delisting levels and that no new
                                                                   hazardous constituents listed in Appendix
                                                                   VIII of part 261 have been introduced and it
                                                                   has received written approval from EPA.
                                                                  4. Data Submittals: Chrysler Group LLC or Old
                                                                   Carco LLC must submit the data obtained
                                                                   through verification testing or as required
                                                                   by other conditions of this rule to both U.S.
                                                                   EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
                                                                   IL 60604 and MDEQ, Waste and Hazardous
                                                                   Materials Division, Hazardous Waste Section,
                                                                   at P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
                                                                   The quarterly verification data and
                                                                   certification of proper disposal must be
                                                                   submitted annually upon the anniversary of
                                                                   the effective date of this exclusion.
                                                                   Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must
                                                                   compile, summarize and maintain on site for a
                                                                   minimum of five years records of operating
                                                                   conditions and analytical data. Chrysler
                                                                   Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must make these
                                                                   records available for inspection. A signed
                                                                   copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR
                                                                   260.22(i)(12) must accompany all data.
                                                                  5. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime after
                                                                   disposal of the delisted waste Chrysler Group
                                                                   LLC or Old Carco LLC possesses or is
                                                                   otherwise made aware of any data (including
                                                                   but not limited to leachate data or
                                                                   groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the
                                                                   delisted waste indicating that any
                                                                   constituent is at a level in the leachate
                                                                   higher than the specified delisting level, or
                                                                   is in the groundwater at a concentration
                                                                   higher than the maximum allowable groundwater
                                                                   concentration in paragraph (e), then Chrysler
                                                                   Group LLC or Old Carco LLC must report such
                                                                   data, in writing, to the Regional
                                                                   Administrator within 10 days of first
                                                                   possessing or being made aware of that data.

                                                                  (b) Based on the information described in
                                                                   paragraph (a) and any other information
                                                                   received from any source, the Regional
                                                                   Administrator will make a preliminary
                                                                   determination as to whether the reported
                                                                   information requires Agency action to protect
                                                                   human health or the environment. Further
                                                                   action may include suspending, or revoking
                                                                   the exclusion, or other appropriate response
                                                                   necessary to protect human health and the
                                                                   environment.
                                                                  (c) If the Regional Administrator determines
                                                                   that the reported information does require
                                                                   Agency action, the Regional Administrator
                                                                   will inform Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco
                                                                   LLC in writing of the actions the Regional
                                                                   Administrator believes are necessary to
                                                                   protect human health and the environment. The
                                                                   notice shall include a statement of the
                                                                   proposed action and a statement providing
                                                                   Chrysler Group LLC or Old Carco LLC with an
                                                                   opportunity to present information as to why
                                                                   the proposed Agency action is not necessary
                                                                   or to suggest an alternative action. Chrysler
                                                                   Group LLC or Old Carco LLC shall have 30 days
                                                                   from the date of the Regional Administrator's
                                                                   notice to present the information.
                                                                  (d) If after 30 days Chrysler Group LLC or Old
                                                                   Carco LLC presents no further information,
                                                                   the Regional Administrator will issue a final
                                                                   written determination describing the Agency
                                                                   actions that are necessary to protect human
                                                                   health or the environment. Any required
                                                                   action described in the Regional
                                                                   Administrator's determination shall become
                                                                   effective immediately, unless the Regional
                                                                   Administrator provides otherwise.
                                                                  (e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater
                                                                   Concentrations ([mu]g/L): arsenic--4.87;
                                                                   nickel--750; benzene--2.5; hexachlorobenzene--
                                                                   0.00168; naphthalene--245; and
                                                                   pentachlorophenol--0.071.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-26837 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34798-34799]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14661]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 64629; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC To Amend
the Fee Schedule Regarding Fees Assessed for the Installation of
Certain Co-Location Services

 June 8, 2011.
    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 May 27, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 the Fee Schedule regarding fees
assessed for the installation of certain co-location services. While
changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective
upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative
on June 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding fees
assessed for the installation of certain co-location services to
further incentivize the use of the co-location services. The
installation fees for the following co-location services will be waived
commencing June 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2011 (the ``designated
period''). Beginning July 1, 2011, the above-referenced waived fees
will resume in full at the amount prior to [sic] designated period. The
Exchange proposes to waive the following installation fees during the
designated period:
    1. Section X(a): Installation fees for new cabinets with power.
    2. Section X(b): Installation fees for external telecommunication,
inter-cabinet connectivity, connectivity to The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
and market data connectivity related to an order for a new cabinet.
However, the one-time telecommunication connectivity expedite fee \3\
will not be waived during the designated period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The one-time telecommunication connectivity expedite fee is
a fee for an optional request to complete the installation in a
shorter time period than the install timeframes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section X(c): Installation fees for cabinet power related to an
order for a new cabinet.
    4. Section X(d): Installation fees for cooling fans, perforated
floor tiles and fiber downspouts, which are necessary items to support
a higher density cabinet and fiber cross connects, relating to an order
for a new cabinet placed during the designated period. Installation
fees for other items that are customized or options are not waived
during the time period.
    The following requirements must be met to receive the waiver of the
installation fee:
    1. The new cabinet order must be placed in the CoLo Console \4\
during the designated period; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ``CoLo Console'' is a Web-based ordering tool that is
utilized by Phlx to place co-location orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. the new cabinet must be live within 90 days of the date of the
order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Exchange staff generally installs and makes operational a
new cabinet within 90 days of the date of the order (the ``live
date''). The estimated live date is communicated to the customer.
However, there may be instances where the customer desires the live
date to be later than the estimated live date provided by Exchange
staff. In such instances, the live date cannot extend beyond 90 days
of the date of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls. The proposed
installation fees in [sic] which the Exchange seeks a temporary waiver
will be assessed equally to customers that place an order for a new
cabinet during the designated period. The proposed amendments will
provide an incentive for customers to avail themselves of the
designated co-location services. The proposal is similar to the waiver
of fees during an introductory period for a product, and is equitable
because all persons may avail themselves of the waiver during the
period of its availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-77 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-2011-77. 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 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-2011-77 and
should be submitted on or before July 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14661 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79066-79067]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1018]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River,
Clinton, IA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Clinton Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile
518.0, at Clinton, Iowa. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge
owner time to perform preventive maintenance that is essential to the
continued safe operation of the drawbridge. Maintenance is scheduled in
the winter when there is less impact on navigation; instead of
scheduling work in the summer, when river traffic increases. This
deviation allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours
advance notice is given.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m., January 2, 2012 to
9 a.m. March 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1018 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1018 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground

Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Union Pacific Railroad requested a
temporary deviation for the Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, across the
Upper Mississippi River, mile 518.0, at Clinton, Iowa to open on signal
if at least 24 hours advance notice is given for 61 days from 12:01
a.m., January 2, 2012 to 9 a.m., March 2, 2012 to allow the bridge
owner time for preventive maintenance. The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge
currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the
general requirement that drawbridge shall open promptly and fully for
the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance
with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the
closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 16 (Mile 457.2 UMR), Lock
No. 17 (Mile 437.1 UMR) and Lock No. 18 (Mile 410.5 UMR) until 4:30
p.m., March 2, 2012 will preclude any significant navigation demands
for the drawspan opening.
    The Clinton Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation
position, provides a vertical clearance of 18.7 feet above normal pool.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft. The drawbridge will open if at least 24-hours
advance notice is given. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 21, 2011.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-32636 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23524-23525]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0211]
RIN 2105-AE07

Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information
Collection Request: Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving
Animals During Air Transport

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(Department or DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Department's intention to apply to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to renew the previously approved
information collection request (ICR) OMB No. 2105-0552, ``Reports by
Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.'' The
current information collection request approved by OMB expires August
31, 2018.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2010-0211) through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except on Federal Holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vinh Q. Nguyen, Senior Trial Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
202-366-9342 (Voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or [email protected]
(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0552.
    Type of Request: Renewal of currently approved Information
Collection Request.
    Background: The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21st Century or ``AIR-21'' (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed
into law on April 5, 2000, includes section 710, ``Reports by Carriers
on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.'' This provision
was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41721. The statute requires air carriers that
provide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit monthly to the
Secretary of Transportation a report on any incidents involving the
loss, injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of
Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.
    On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of
AIR-21.\1\ The rule required air carriers that provide scheduled
passenger air transportation to submit a report to APHIS on any
incident involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transportation provided by the air carrier. Due to issues regarding
whether APHIS had the

capability to accept such information directly from the carriers, DOT
made a technical change in the rule on February 14, 2005, to require
air carriers to submit the required information directly to DOT's
Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD) rather than APHIS and to
make the rule part of DOT's economic regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reporting Directive Regarding Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport, 68 FR 47798 (August 11, 2003).
    \2\ Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport, 70 FR 7392 (February 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 2014, DOT published a final rule amending the
requirement that air carriers file reports with DOT on the loss,
injury, or death of animals during air transport.\3\ The rule (1)
expanded the reporting requirement from the largest U.S. carriers
(i.e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue) to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled
service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than
60 seats; (2) expanded the definition of ``animal'' from only a pet in
a family household to include all cats and dogs transported by covered
carriers, regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet
by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a
breeder); (3) required covered carriers to file a calendar-year report
in December, even if the carrier did not have any reportable incidents
during the calendar year; (4) required covered carriers to provide in
their December reports the total number of animals that were lost,
injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year; and (5)
required covered carriers to provide in their December reports the
total number of animals transported in the calendar year. On August 25,
2015, OMB approved the information collection request, ``Reports by Air
Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport,'' through
August 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport, 79 FR 37938 (July 3, 2014) (codified at 14 CFR
part 235).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to reduce burden to covered carriers, the ACPD established
a website and online system for filing the required reports, http://animalreport.ost.dot.gov. This system enables covered carriers to
easily and efficiently submit their reports through the internet rather
than sending the reports to the Department by mail or email.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service
with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more
than 60 seats.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 32.
    Frequency: For each respondent, one information set for the month
of December, plus one information set during some other months (1 to
12).
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: (1) Monthly reports of
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of animals during air
transport: 0 to 384 hours (Respondents [32] x Time to Prepare One
Monthly Report [1 hour] x Frequency [0 to 12 per year]). (2) December
report containing the total number of animals that were lost, injured,
or died during air transport in the calendar year and the total number
of animals that were transported in the calendar year: 16 hours
(Respondents [32] x Time to Prepare One December Report [0.5 hour] x
Frequency (1 per year)].
    Public comments invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information.
    All comments will become a matter of public record. All responses
to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB
approval.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.27(n).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2018, under the authority
delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n).
Blane A. Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2018-10763 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P