MemoTo:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208
From:	Todd Sherwood, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD
Date:	August 25, 2021
Re:	e-mail Exchange with Neelesh Nerurkar

On August 25, 2021, I responded to two e-mail inquiries from Neelesh Nerurkar. The e-mail threads are included in this memorandum.

Message Thread 1

Todd,

Many thanks for this and the fuel demand guidance (you were correct about my error). Greatly appreciated!

I hope the hearing is going well and good luck as you work towards a final rule.

Best wishes,
Neelesh
202-330-1360

On Aug 25, 2021, at 12:14 PM, Sherwood, Todd<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

Neelesh,

The best place to look may well be RIA section 4.2 "Estimates of Fuel Economy Impacts" which shows standards and ratings (achieved) levels. The tables presented are in MPG-space but the footnotes show how they were calculated so can easily be converted back to CO2/CO2e (whichever you want) and may be easier to compare to NHTSA MPG tables in their documents.

Best regards,
Todd Sherwood

From: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:11 PM
To: Sherwood, Todd<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Question on tailpipe standards

Todd, can you reply directly back to Neelesh?

From: Sherwood, Todd<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:04 AM
To: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Question on tailpipe standards

The best place to look may well be RIA section 4.2 "Estimates of Fuel Economy Impacts" which shows standards and ratings (achieved) levels. The tables presented are in MPG-space but the footnotes show how they were calculated so can easily be converted back to CO2/CO2e and may be easier to compare to NHTSA MPG tables in their documents.

From: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 7:46 AM
To: Sherwood, Todd<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: FW: [EXT] RE: Question on tailpipe standards

Hi Todd, another public (consultant?) inquiry  -  any ideas on this Q?

From: Neelesh Nerurkar<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 11:47 PM
To: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Hengst, Benjamin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Question on tailpipe standards

Ben  -  thank you.

Mike and Robin  -  Congratulations on getting the proposal out and thanks for your help; I know you must be busy.

Background/road rules: I write analytic notes on energy/climate policy that we send to clients and also share with some press. I do intend to use this information for a note Tuesday afternoon, but it is for my context. I only cite publicly available information and I will never quote you.

I figured out where I misread the fuel use information in the CCEMS files, but did have a second question where I would appreciate any thoughts you can share: Is there someplace where data on EPA's and NHTSA's achieved annual fleet average emissions stringency is on a comparable basis? I had thought it might be Table 36 in EPA's NPRM and Table II-5 in NHTSA's NPRM, but the former is in gCO2e/mile and the latter is in gCO2/mile. I do not know if the difference is covered gases or different levels of stringency.

Understood if this is complicated. Also, please let know if it is more convenient to chat by phone.

Many thanks,
Neelesh
202-330-1360

Message Thread 2

Neelesh  -  I thought I was sending this directly to you.

From: Sherwood, Todd
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 9:15 AM
To: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Klump, Jennifer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Ronquillo, Rafi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Wysor, Tad<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: OTAQ inquiry FW: Question on Gasoline use Table 46 in LDV GHG NPRM

You might be filtering the data on "TOTAL" while we filtered on "Gasoline" (just a guess since by doing that I got ~8 million barrels in 2023). The "TOTAL" value would include electricity consumption as a gasoline equivalent, which works for NHTSA in CAFE-space, but not for EPA in GHG-space.

If you have downloaded the PostProcessingTool then you have all of the excel files that show exactly how we calculated things. In "annual_societal_effects_summary_report_NPRM_Primary.xlsx" there is a worksheet called "fuel" that shows the values presented in our preamble and RIA tables.

Lastly, in the PDF documentation for the tool (usepa-ccems-postprocessingtool-release0.3.1.pdf), in section 3.2, Table 1, you will find a complete run down of the scenarios, their names, what they represent, etc.

I hope that helps.

From: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 3:31 PM
To: Klump, Jennifer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sherwood, Todd<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Ronquillo, Rafi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Wysor, Tad<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: OTAQ inquiry FW: Question on Gasoline use Table 46 in LDV GHG NPRM

Todd, since this incoming Q is on the model, can you respond directly to the requester?  Just cc Jennifer so she knows its been responded to.

Thanks
Robin

From: Klump, Jennifer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Moran, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Olechiw, Michael<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Ronquillo, Rafi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: OTAQ inquiry FW: Question on Gasoline use Table 46 in LDV GHG NPRM

Hello again Robin and Michael,

Here is another request we received regarding the LDV GHG NPRM. Let me know if I should direct this inquiry to someone else or if you can respond.

Thanks very much.

Jennifer Klump (she/her/hers)
Public Inquiries Librarian, ASRC Federal (ASMS) Contractor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|<PHONE_NUMBER>
11:00am  -  3:00pm, (Mon.-Fri., excluding federal holidays)
US EPA NVFEL
asrcfederal.com | Purpose Driven. Enduring Commitment

From: Neelesh Nerurkar<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:30 AM
To: EPA Office of Transportation & Air Quality<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Question on Gasoline use Table 46 in LDV GHG NPRM

Thanks for your help. I'm trying to find the data behind NPRM Table 46 or DRIA Table 5-7 (same data) in the output files in the "CCEM PostProcessingToolProject" zip folder.

I think I should be able to calculate the NPRM/DRIA gasoline use figures from column J of tab "annual_societal_effects_summary" in the excel file labeled "annual_societal_effects_summary_report_NPRM_Primary" using the following two scenarios:
 "Framework_Safe"
 "Fw-to-Proposal_Safe-to-Proposal"

For other data points, these two scenarios seem to correspond to what the NPRM refers to as "no-action" and "proposal" scenarios. However, the numbers do not come out to quite the same for gasoline use. For instance, I get -8 million barrels in 2023 and  -256 million barrels in 2050. The NPRM has -9 million and -291 million for those values, respectively.

Am I using the wrong file, the wrong scenarios, or is EPA adjusting by more than just 42 gallons to the barrel?

Separately, is there text describing the different scenarios/runs somewhere?

Thanks,
Neelesh Nerurkar
202-330-1360


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 57078]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22751]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2014-0112; FRL-9917-05-OARM]

National and Governmental Advisory Committees to the U.S.
Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting Teleconference Call.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a meeting of
the National Advisory Committee (NAC) and Governmental Advisory
Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Representative to the North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The National and
Governmental Advisory Committees advise the EPA Administrator in her
capacity as the U.S. Representative to the CEC Council. The Committees
are authorized under Articles 17 and 18 of the North American Agreement
on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, and as directed by
Executive Order 12915, entitled ``Federal Implementation of the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation.'' The NAC is composed
of 14 members representing academia, environmental non-governmental
organizations, and private industry. The GAC consists of 15 members
representing state, local, and Tribal governments. The Committees are
responsible for providing advice to the U.S. Representative on a wide
range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, and economic
issues related to implementation and further elaboration of the NAAEC.
    The purpose of this meeting is to provide advice on the Operational
Plan of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, traditional
ecological knowledge, and to discuss other trade and environment issues
in North America. The meeting will also include a public comment
session. The agenda, meeting materials, and general information about
NAC and GAC will be available at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/nac-gac.

DATES: The NAC/GAC will hold a public teleconference on October 23,
2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1132, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal
Officer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-564-0347, U.S. EPA, Office of
Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (1601-M), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to make oral comments or to provide
written comments to NAC/GAC should be sent to Oscar Carrillo at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Wednesday, October 15, 2014. The meeting is
open to the public, with limited seating on a first-come, first-served
basis. Members of the public wishing to participate in the
teleconference should contact Oscar Carrillo at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> by October 15, 2014.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Oscar Carrillo at 202-
564-0347 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Oscar Carrillo, preferably at least 10 days
prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: September 15, 2014.
Oscar Carrillo,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-22751 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Evaluation of Effectiveness of Lead Safe Work Practices (LSWP) Training

Executive Summary

Authors:

Alexa Fraser, Ph. D.

Susan Viet, Ph. D., C.I.H.

March 23, 2004

Prepared for:

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control

451 Seventh Street, SW

Room P3206

Washington, DC 20410	Prepared by:

WESTAT

Rockville, Maryland

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of its implementation plan for the Lead Safe Housing Rule (24
Part 35) and capacity building efforts, HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes
and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC) funded delivery of Lead Safe Work
Practices (LSWP) training nationwide to help develop a workforce trained
to work around lead-based paint safely and efficiently.  OHHLHC's goals
of ensuring accountability, improving work quality and efficiency, and
planning new programs require execution and periodic evaluation of
activities to indicate whether objectives of the initiative have been
met.  As a result, this systematic review and assessment of the
effectiveness of LSWP training was conducted.

Methodology

The comprehensive design focused on evaluating both process and outcomes
for two curricula - the National Environmental Training Association
(NETA) Lead-based Paint Maintenance Training Program (Lead Maintenance
curriculum) and the joint HUD-EPA recently-developed curriculum Lead
Safety for Remodeling, Repair, and Painting (RRP curriculum) (without
exercises).  The first step was to evaluate the curriculum development
process.  This involved comparing the knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs) and learning objectives (LOs) and mapping the LOs to the course
materials for each curriculum.  The second step was to train workers and
evaluate their performance on written tests and when conducting work on
lead-based paint (or presumed lead-based paint).  A total of 83 workers
were trained in Lead Maintenance, with 37 being observed.  A total of
108 workers were trained in RRP, with 36 being observed.  Various
internal and external factors were recorded in order to assess their
effect on test and job performance.  In addition, past and current
trainers of Lead Maintenance and RRR curricula were interviewed for
their insights about the effectiveness of the training.  The performance
of the trainees was then analyzed in relation to the curricula and
internal and external factors to determine whether training was valuable
and whether there was a transfer of training.

Overall Judgments about Effectiveness of Training

Overall, the two LSWP course curricula, Lead Maintenance and RRP, were
found to be effective in imparting the general knowledge needed as a
basis for performing lead-based paint related work in a safe manner.
Trainees were satisfied with their new knowledge and performed well on
the posttests, showing a paper-an-pencil knowledge of LSWPs.  The RRP
curriculum is somewhat less effective than the Lead Maintenance
curriculum due to reduced regulation and health effect discussion and
poor audiovisuals.  We consider these courses to provide good and
effective awareness type training.

However, neither curriculum prepared the trainee to perform actual work
in a lead safe manner.  Numerous lead-safe behaviors were not followed
by trainees following completion of both curricula.  While some external
factors affected their behavior, the LSWP steps are relatively simple
such that had the trainees understood, they could still have easily
incorporated most of the steps despite such external factors.   Where
external factors were not a problem, e.g., among landlords, an equal
number of poor behaviors were observed.

We could not confidently address one of HUD’s critical questions: Can
the trainees pass clearance?  Most jobs were not cleared (90% of Lead
Maintenance jobs and 63% of RRP jobs) when it was required and even more
often (e.g., small jobs) it was not required.  For those that were
cleared, it was doubtful that the clearance was properly performed.

Recommendations for Modifying Curriculum

A number of recommendations for modifying the curriculum should be
considered based on the study findings.  Some of the recommendations are
repeated below as they were identified in multiple evaluation
components.

From Process Evaluation findings:

Review KSA-LO mapping deficiencies.  Revise course materials to include
LOs that address each KSA and add or revise materials to more adequately
address KSAs where the LO is not addressed by the course materials.

Require a hands-on component – Good course design principles suggest
that “how to” topics are more effectively transferred via
demonstration and/or hands-on format.

Review and revise LOs and/or performance evaluation criteria – The
evaluation criteria should align with stated LOs and goals for the
training.  If the goal is to be able to perform LSWP and Pass clearance,
then the performance criteria must include performing and passing.  This
suggests a hands-on type performance evaluation.

From the Value of Training findings

Lead Maintenance – Trainees suggested increasing the font size in the
course materials, and providing more practice and hands-on experience
during class time.

RRP- Trainees suggested more animated visuals and providing more
practice and hands-on experience during class time.  Slow readers and
people with less education require graphics rather than text to learn
effectively.

Reduce the reading level of important appendix materials – Planning a
job, HUD requirements, Pre-renovation rule.  While we can assume that
comprehension is enhanced through the trainer’s explanations and
visuals, all materials provided should be at the same level -  “Plain
English” - particularly in the case of the RRP texts.

From the Internal/External Factors findings:

More than half of the past and current course trainers mentioned the
need for a hands-on training segment or optional workshops.  A few
mentioned that some sort of combination of the best components from the
LM and RRR courses would result in a stronger training.

In addition, trainers believe that all trainees should receive a copy of
both the planning tool and the field guide, as well as the EPA pamphlet,
regardless of which course they attend.

Specify conditions for the classroom environment – While we specified
and worked toward very specific conditions for this evaluation, trainees
commented on such things as room lighting and temperature.  We did not
see an affect on learning due to these conditions.  However, trainers
reported that some internal factors, e.g., number of trainees, do affect
training effectiveness.

From the Transfer of Training findings:

Add new text to clearly explain some of the terms and key concepts that
were identified to be confusing – abatement, LWSP training
requirements, clearance.

Include an LSWP equipment/supplies kit and HEPA vacuum, and perhaps zip
poles as mandatory demonstration – The field observations showed us
that the trainees did not understand what some of the supplies were
based on a list, line drawings, or quick photos.

Include a hands-on component for trainees – Field observations showed
that trainees did not follow many of the safe work practices.

Note:  This recommendation will either require additional time in the
classroom (i.e., another half to full day) or a complete revamping of
course format to focus on hands-on, while learning the knowledge
information as part of a full day hands-on exercise.

The one recommendation that was made during every component in the
evaluation, from process evaluation to trainee and past and current
trainer comments to observations of work following training, was the
need for hands-on training.  HUD should seriously consider this
recommendation.  The exercises presented in the RRP curricula are not
hands-on training.

Other Recommendations

Additional recommendations that arose during the project, but are not
aimed at modification of existing curriculum, included:

Develop package for putting on course for potential sponsors – There
are still many untrained individuals who require LSWP training.  We
found that sponsors appreciated receiving help with putting on the LSWP
courses.  A package that might get more people trained would useful.
This could include sample advertising flyers and letters, training room
criteria, clear definition of people who must be trained, registration
forms, sign-up sheets, etc.

Training Other Populations – It is important to train other
populations who conduct LWSP work.  During this evaluation, we had a
number of Spanish-speaking trainees who, while they had a basic
understanding of spoken English, had a difficult time understanding all
the English text materials.  Training other populations requires more
than simply translating the materials however.  Some recommendations
include:

Develop Spanish versions of materials, train Spanish-speaking trainers,
and evaluate whether other modifications are needed through pilot
trainings.

Develop as many self-explanatory visuals as possible – for use with
all courses, but especially for trainees with different languages
(Spanish is not the only other language).

Identify and outreach to other populations people who need the training,
e.g., rural and tribal Populations.

Require Supervisors be trained in LSWP as well – If supervisors of
workers who work with lead-based paint take these courses as well, there
may be more supervisor support and supply of correct supplies.

Develop a technical bulletin that clearly describes the rules for who
needs LSWP training and when and how clearance testing must be done.

Develop separate course for sponsors, lead grantee administrators, etc.
– Such a course would focus not so much on details of work as on what
is required.

Some sort of LSWP enforcement – While we recognize that this could be
an expensive proposition, perhaps some modest enforcement type activity
could be employed, e.g., requiring a copy of the LWSP training
certificate for workers on jobs that are HUD funded, or a signed
statement by lead grantees that all jobs are conducted by trained
workers and cleared by licensed risk assessors.

 PAGE

 PAGE   ii

 PAGE

ES- PAGE   5


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

April 12, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Follow-up Trailer Import Discussion with Wabash National
Corporation on April 8, 2016

FROM:	Jessica Brakora, Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:	Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Dockets
NHTSA-2014-0132 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

On April 8, 2016, EPA staff met with representatives from Wabash
National Corporation (Wabash) via phone.  The purpose of the phone call
was to include additional EPA staff and continue previous discussions
from December 1 and December 15, 2015 regarding Wabash’s concerns over
trailer importation.  The following participants attended the meeting:

Wabash representatives:

Patrick Quinn, The Accord Group

Jamie Scarcelli, Wabash, Senior Vice President - General Counsel and
Secretary

Erin Roth, Wabash, Vice President - Corporate Strategy and Government
Affairs

EPA representatives:

Byron Bunker, EPA Compliance Division

Stephen Healy, EPA Compliance Division

Holly Pugliese, EPA Compliance Division

Jessica Brakora, EPA Assessment and Standards Division

Tad Wysor, EPA Assessment and Standards Division

Alan Stout, EPA Assessment and Standards Division

Chuck Moulis, EPA Assessment and Standards Division

Mario Jorquera, EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

The meeting began by highlighting that the largest concern was trailers
that are “imported” by being driven across the border as a standard
trailer that may be indistinguishable from other in-use trailers.  EPA
noted that if a new trailer is registered in the U.S., EPA has the
ability to track it.  Wabash acknowledged that it would be difficult for
large fleets to place large orders and accept delivery this way
undetected.  However, smaller fleets and owner-operators may be able to
register their trailers in Mexico and transport them into the U.S.  EPA
noted that fleets and operators that choose this route would be able to
do U.S.-Mexico and Mexico-U.S. deliveries, but would be restricted from
delivering exclusively inside the U.S.

EPA inquired what location information was needed to register a trailer
and Wabash suggested that they may be able to use a PO Box.  EPA asked
if weigh stations are likely to check vehicle registration information
and Wabash believed the weigh station operators are mostly just focused
on safety and weight.   EPA suggested that it can work with state-based
departments of motor vehicles to ensure that they check manufacturer’s
statement of origin (MSO) paperwork as part of the registration process,
but that would not counter fraudulent activity.  EPA asked if duties or
tariffs may be an avenue to track imported trailers.  Wabash noted that
border traffic will be significantly impacted if border officials must
check every tractor-trailer that crosses into the U.S.

EPA stated that it intends to reach out to appropriate agencies once the
rule is final to begin a dialogue related to future trailer importation
requirements.  The agency has a long-standing relationship with Customs
and Border Protection, but may have to recruit help from additional
agencies to ensure trailer registrations and emissions certifications
are aligned.

Follow-up Trailer Import Discussion with Wabash on April 8, 2016 - Page
 PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES   2


[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 47201-47202]
[DOCID:fr13au08-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-0209]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0018

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding
an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an extension of their approval
for the following collection of information: 1625-0018, Official
Logbook. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Please submit comments on or before September 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2008-0209] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) or to OIRA. To avoid
duplication, please submit your comments by only one of the following
means:
    (1) Electronic submission. (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://
www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by e-mail via: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail or Hand delivery. (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Hand deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-
366-9329. (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, to
the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax. (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in time, mark the fax to the
attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the complete ICR is available through this docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,
(Attn: Mr. Arthur Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this information
collection request should be granted based on it being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number
of the ICR. Comments to Coast Guard must contain the docket number of
this request, [USCG 2008-0209]. For your comments to OIRA to be
considered, it is best if they are received on or before the September
12, 2008.
    Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to
respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials.
We will post all comments received, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy'' below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2008-0209], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We

recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail address, or
other contact information in the body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may
submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change the
documents supporting this collection of information or even the
underlying requirements in view of them. The Coast Guard and OIRA will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2008-0209] in the Search box, and
click, ``Go>>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477), or by visiting http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (73 FR 19081, April 8,
2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Official Logbook.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0018.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Federal agency maritime casualty investigators,
Coast Guard inspectors, and shipping companies.
    Abstract: The Official Logbook contains information on the vessel's
crew, drills, and operations conducted during the voyage. Official
Logbook entries identify all particulars regarding the nature of the
voyage, including the name/class of the ship, official number, port of
registry, tonnage, and merchant mariner names/document numbers of the
master/crew. In addition, it also contains entries for the vessel's
drafts, maintenance of watertight integrity of the ship, drills/
inspections, crew list with report of character, a summary of laws
applicable to logbooks, and miscellaneous entries.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 1,750 hours
per year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: August 4, 2008.
M. B. Lytle,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-18635 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5600-5601]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 611; OMB Control No. 3238-0600; SEC File No. 270-540.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
     (Rule 611 (17 CFR 242.611)--Order Protection Rule
    On June 9, 2005, effective August 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 37496, June
29, 2005), the Commission adopted Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) to require any
national securities

exchange, national securities association, alternative trading system,
exchange market maker, over-the-counter market maker and any other
broker-dealer that executes orders internally by trading as principal
or crossing orders as agent, to establish, maintain, and enforce
policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of
a transaction in its market at a price that is inferior to a bid or
offer displayed in another market at the time of execution (a ``trade-
though''), absent an applicable exception and, if relying on an
exception, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance with the
terms of the exception. Without this collection of information,
respondents would not have a means to enforce compliance with the
Commission's intention to prevent trade-throughs pursuant to the rule.
    There are approximately 788 respondents\1\ per year that will
require an aggregate total of 36,540 hours to comply with this rule.\2\
It is anticipated that each respondent will continue to expend
approximately 60 hours annually: Two hours per month of internal legal
time and three hours per month of internal compliance time to ensure
that its written policies and procedures are up-to-date and remain in
compliance with Rule 611. The estimated cost for an in-house attorney
is $295 per hour and the estimated cost for an assistant compliance
director in the securities industry is $301 per hour. Therefore the
estimated total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden is as
follows: [(2 legal hours x 12 months x $295) x 788] + [(3 compliance
hours x 12 months x $301) x 788] = $14,117,808.\3\ There are no longer
start-up costs associated with Rule 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate includes nine national securities exchanges
and one national securities association that trade NMS stocks. The
estimate also includes the approximately 731 firms that were
registered equity market makers or specialists at year-end 2006, as
well as automated trading systems that operate trading systems that
trade NMS stocks.
    \2\ The one-time hour burden associated with developing the
required policies and procedures is no longer applicable.
    \3\ The total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden has
been revised to reflect updated estimated cost figures for an in-
house attorney and an assistant compliance director. These figures
are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2007, adjusted by the SEC staff for an 1800 hour
work year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 50870 (Dec. 16, 2004), 69 FR 77424 (Dec. 27, 2004) at notes 427,
428 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within
60 days of this notice.

    Dated: January 23, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1617 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 42847-42848]
[DOCID:fr28jy06-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0460; FRL-8204-1]

Board of Scientific Counselors Computational Toxicology
Subcommittee Meeting--August 2006

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of one meeting (via conference call) of
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Computational Toxicology
Subcommittee.

DATES: The conference call will be held on Wednesday, August 16, 2006,
from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern time, and may adjourn early if all
business is finished. Requests for the draft agenda or for making oral
presentations at the meeting will be accepted up to 1 business day
before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference call will be by
teleconference only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the calls from
Lorelei Kowalski, whose contact information is listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0460, by one of
the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0460.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0460.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors Computational Toxicology Meeting--June 2006 Docket,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-
0460. Note: this is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific

Counselors Computational Toxicology Subcommittee Meeting--June 2006
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Lorelei Kowalski, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the conference call may contact
Lorelei Kowalski, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the
contact methods listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited
to a total of three minutes.

    The purpose of this conference call is to review, discuss, and
potentially approve a draft letter report prepared by the BOSC
Computational Toxicology Subcommittee. Proposed agenda items for the
conference call include, but are not limited to: discussion of the
draft letter report; subcommittee feedback on the ORD Computational
Toxicology Implementation Plan; and next steps. The conference call is
open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Lorelei Kowalski at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,

please contact Lorelei Kowalski, preferably at least 10 days prior to
the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: July 21, 2006.
Kevin Y. Teichman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E6-12113 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 1 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search:

EPA Home > Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances > Pollution Prevention > Environmentally Preferable Purchasing > EPP Guidance > Standard's Development > Side by Side Summary About EPP EPP Guidance Federal Efforts EPP Tool Suite EPP Documents EPP Links Side by side summary of the comments received in response to the Federal Register notice on developing voluntary standards for Environmentally Preferable Products and Services Independent Standards Developing Organizations ( SDOs) The Five Guiding Principles EPA's Final Guidance Standards Development Top 20 Priorities Commenter ASTM Products/ Sectors Represented Diverse materials, products, systems, and services in over 100 industries Standards Activities l Develops standards l ANSI accredited l Does not perform certifications Environmental Attribute Activities Subcommittee E06.71 is addressing environmental attributes of buildings Market Needs Assessment Building and constructions sector needs assessed Recommendations EPA should participate in Committee on Performance of Buildings Other Issues ASTM interested in helping implement E. O. 13101 with respect to sustainability of built environmen Commenter Green Seal ( 501( c)( 3) nonprofit)

Products/ Sectors Represented All manufactured goods and services Standards Activities Develops standards and performs certification Environmental Attribute Activities Develops attributes based on lifecyle impacts and includes environmental attributes in all standards Market Needs Assessment Not addressed RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 JUN20 7: 42AM OPPT 2003 0032 0008 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 2 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Recommendations l EPA should not require consensus standards; consensus requirement will lead to no standards or weak standards.

l EPA should use Green Seal standards because they are immediately available at no cost and are the only U. S. lifecycle environmental standards for manufactured products.

Other Issues EPA has no authority to require or adopt consensus standards Commenter NSF International Products/ Sectors Represented Drinking water, water treatment, commercial food equipment, wastewater treatment, and others Standards Activities l Develops standards and certifies health and environmental products l ANSI accredited Environmental Attribute Activities Plans to incorporate new criteria for environmental protection Market Needs Assessment Examining market needs at present time Recommendations l Best approach should involve a consensus generating process that has a strong scientific basis and can reflect changes in knowledge.

l EPA should provide initial seed funding support to pilots.

Other Issues l The standards development process is particularly expensive.

l The definitions of environmental preferability are very complex and not obvious, and therefore not easily determined.

Commenter Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

( nonprofit)

Products/ Sectors Represented Not all specified, but includes refrigerant and halon recovery and recycling equipment, emission reduction equipment, cooking equipment, underground storage tanks, and excavation liners.

Standards Activities l Develops and publishes safety standards and performs conformity assessments l ANSI accredited Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 3 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Back to top Purchasers l ANSI accredited Environmental Attribute Activities Develops standards with public safety, human well being, and the environment in mind Market Needs Assessment Not addressed Recommendations EPA should continue data gathering in markets most suited for EPP and make this information available to voluntary standards developers who have demonstrated that they can responsibly and effectively contribute to the health and well being of the public Other Issues UL is prepared to work closely with EPA and other interested parties to determine the level of expertise required for EPP standards development.

Commenter Department of the Navy Products/ Sectors Represented Supplies, equipment, and services Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations EPA should first establish minimum criteria for voluntary consensus standards for EPP and organizations that test EPP.

l Voluntary standards adopted by EPA should meet the following criteria: public forum that allows all stakeholders to participate l provide a single list of preferable attributes l compare products within the context of their intended use and current practices l consider incremental cost increases relative to environmental benefits l resolve competing environmental concerns and values quantitatively l require independent verification of claims l independence from existing regulatory concerns l not pose undue burden on business l available at reasonable or no cost l consider occupational safety and health Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 4 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Manufacturers/ Vendors Proposing Pilot Project Candidates Other Issues See Recommendations Commenter North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ( NAIMA)

Products/ Sectors Represented Fiber glass, slag wool, and rock wool insulation products Standards Activities Developed standards for specific types of insulation products Environmental Attribute Activities Determined energy efficiency and developed lifecycle analysis tool for competing products Market Needs Assessment Cited demand in building sector and misinformation in the marketplace. Also has commissioned studies to document energy savings and pollution reduction achieved through use of insulation products.

Recommendations A voluntary standard should be developed to identify the characteristics of environmentally preferable insulation products.

Other Issues See Recommendations Commenter Reusable Industrial Packaging Association ( RIPA)

Products/ Sectors Represented Reusable industrial packaging Standards Activities l Developed standards for industrial packaging l Has worked with ASTM and ANSI Environmental Attribute Activities Identified environmental attributes of reusable industrial packaging Market Needs Assessment Identified federal government as major user of industrial packaging Recommendations l Urges establishment of a voluntary standard specifying that industrial containers be manufactured or reconditioned to DOT requirements for reusable/ reconditionable containers.

l EPA should examine standards promoting reuse followed by recycling.

Other Issues l Concerned with EPA's greater focus on the recycled content of new containers than on the benefits of container reuse. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 5 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Back to top Back to top Manufacturers/ Vendors Not Proposing Pilot Project Candidates benefits of container reuse.

l Is willing to develop or help to develop standards for reusable industrial containers.

Commenter Terresolve Technologies, Inc.

Products/ Sectors Represented Various oils, greases, fluids, and lubricants Standards Activities l Does not develop specific business or industry standards l Has, in place, standard development activities Environmental Attribute Activities l Standard development activities integrate environmental attributes l Uses various environmentally responsible definitions for products Market Needs Assessment Is aware of market needs Recommendations Commenter provided definitions for several environmental attributes ( i. e., biodegradable, non toxic, agricultural based, and bio based) and marketing terms ( i. e., environmentally safe, environmentally preferable).

Other Issues Commenter American Forest & Paper Association ( AF& PA)

Products/ Sectors Represented Forest, paper, and solid wood products Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations See Georgia Pacific summary Other Issues l The tools available for identifying " environmentally preferable" are limited and cannot be used universally because the environment is local.

l EPP could create unanticipated, devastating distortions in the market.

l Added costs in ordering and processing could Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 6 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 l Added costs in ordering and processing could affect global competitiveness. See also Georgia Pacific summary Commenter American Wood Preservers Institute Products/ Sectors Represented Pressure treated wood Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations None described Other Issues l Selective claims about environmental impacts can be misleading.

l Lifecycle analysis will identify few clearly preferable products.

l Cost in service is probably the best universal measure of integrated net environmental impact.

l Regulation of disposal of preserved wood increases its cost.

l The concept of " environmentally preferred product" has been misused to imply that the federal government will ignore all other factors in making purchasing decisions.

Commenter Amway Corporation Products/ Sectors Represented Consumer products Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l Federal endorsement of third party product specification schemes could discourage innovative improvement in product performance and safety.

l Object to generation of lists of " environmentally preferred" products that imply government endorsement.

l See also Georgia Pacific summary l See also CSMA summary Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 7 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 l See also CSMA summary Other Issues l U. S. government is best served by continuing to support development of sound scientific approaches to measure environmental impacts on well defined endpoints.

l The tools available for identifying " environmentally preferable" are limited and cannot be used universally because the environment is local.

l EPP could create unanticipated, devastating distortions in the market.

l Added costs in ordering and processing could affect global competitiveness.

l See also Georgia Pacific summary l See also CSMA summary Commenter Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association ( CSMA)

Products/ Sectors Represented Products for household, institutional, and industrial use Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l CSMA recommends an information based EPP model under which suppliers voluntarily disclose verified claims about environmental characteristics of goods and services.

l The federal government should accept an offeror's environmental attribute claim on the basis of possession of competent and reliable evidence.

l Any voluntary consensus standards considered by EPA should not include broad environmental terms.

l EPA should not drive the development of new voluntary consensus standards. EPA should first identify a pilot project before considering what might be an appropriate standards organization to use.

l EPA should follow the FTC Guides, NTTAA, OMB A 119, and ISO standards.

l The determination and need for standards should be left up to specific industry sectors.

l Third party certification programs should not be used to judge relative environmental preferability. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 8 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Other Issues l CSMA does not support the use of such terms as " environmentally preferable" because no scientific criteria currently exist, including lifecycle assessment, to support such terms.

l The [ EPP program development] process has not been transparent and industry's comments have been largely ignored.

l CSMA member companies want to assist in EPP program development and have the opportunity to provide environmental information that is both accurate and meaningful [ emphasis in original].

l Expense of obtaining third party verification.

l Can certifiers be conflict free consultants under government contracts.

Commenter Chlorine Chemistry Council Products/ Sectors Represented Thousands of products including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, construction materials, and electronics Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l EPA should consult with other parties, particularly organizations interested in engaging in pilot projects.

l EPA should provide up front guidance on the standards development process and the appropriate uses of such standards.

l EPA should clearly define " voluntary consensus standards" and " standards developers."

l EPA should limit the scope of " voluntary consensus standard organization" to the definition in OMB Circular A 119.

l EPA should focus on promoting voluntary consensus standards for specific pilot projects.

l Once completed, pilot projects should be reviewed, with input from all stakeholders, to learn what practical value voluntary consensus standards may have in broader EPP efforts.

l EPA should ensure that any EPP standards developer can satisfy ISO standards including reasonable effort to achieve consensus; verifiable scientific basis; lifecycle analysis, subject to critical review; no unfair barriers to trade.

l EPA should promote awareness of FTC Guidelines among federal procurement officials and participants in pilot projects. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 9 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 and participants in pilot projects.

Other Issues See Recommendations Commenter Coalition for Truth in Environmental Marketing, Inc.

Products/ Sectors Represented Represents producers and vendors Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l Specific industry sectors should decide whether product standards are needed, based on feedback from the marketplace.

l EPA should first explore the use of voluntary consensus standards on an experimental basis, subject to the following conditions:

l Standards development process should balance environmental considerations with needs of purchasers for performance and cost.

l Use definitions and procedures in OMB Circular A 119 and principles and procedures in ISO ecolabeling standards l Only organizations with an established history and widely recognized ability to develop standards ( e. g., ASTM, ANSI, UL, and NSF) should lead the effort.

l Environmental attributes should have a strong scientific basis.

l The development of voluntary consensus standards should be informed by market research on the expectations and needs of government purchasers ( e. g., priority of environmental attributes, how they are balanced with cost and performance, and whether information will be understood and interpreted correctly).

Other Issues l The criteria available to identify EPP are crude at best.

l Avoiding adverse impacts on private markets by federal endorsement of specific products.

l Supports the use of third parties to help " verify" products sold to the government or help agencies set up verification programs.

l Can certifiers be conflict free consultants under government advisory and assistance contracts? Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 10 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Commenter Eastman Kodak Company Products/ Sectors Represented Products that may be affected by the EPP initiative Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations EPA might consider collecting data from other programs involving voluntary consensus processes to compare with EPP pilot projects. See also Georgia Pacific Other Issues See also Georgia Pacific Commenter Edison Electric Institute ( EEI)

Products/ Sectors Represented Shareholder owned electric utilities Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l Avoid categorically excluding or steering agencies toward or away from particular goods and services.

l Standards should be relevant; set using an inclusive, consensus based process; based on sound scientific and representative data; reasonable and objective; and well accepted in the marketplace.

Other Issues EPA appears to be promoting the development of standards for environmentally preferable goods and services, rather than pilot projects. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 11 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Commenter Georgia Pacific Products/ Sectors Represented Paper and wood products Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l EPA should focus its use of voluntary standards development on pre selected pilot projects supported by a consensus of a sector responsible for the product category under review.

l EPA must clearly identify the process and the scientific basis it will use to determine which products are to be considered " environmentally preferable."

l EPA should issue a new public notice after consulting with organizations interested in pilot projects.

l EPA should not initiate new EPP pilot projects on products that are already being addressed through other programs ( e. g., paper and wood products).

l To comply with the NTTAA and OMB Circular A 119, EPA should first identify pilot projects and project participants before initiating a standards process.

l EPP must meet the same standards of accuracy, scientific substantiation, and nondeception that apply to private sector product declarations affecting purchasing decisions.

l EPA must ensure that EPP standards development conforms to ISO standards including ( 1) reasonable effort to achieve consensus; ( 2) verifiable scientific basis; ( 3) based on lifecycle analysis, subject to critical review; and ( 4) avoid establishing unfair barriers to trade.

Other Issues l Continued proposal and changes in environmental attributes creates a " moving target" situation for products and customers that is costly, confusing, and interfering with normal trading practices.

l E. O. 13101 limits EPA's evaluation of the use of standards developing organizations to pilot projects.

l If lifecycle assessment is to be used, the tool has many limitations, and international standards and good practices impose strict requirements on its use. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 12 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Back to top Other requirements on its use.

Commenter Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc.

Products/ Sectors Represented Not described Standards Activities l Internal standards development for academic, government, and industry clients l Not ANSI accredited Environmental Attribute Activities l Performs hazard assessments for consulting clients l Has been discussing prospective computerized tool for EPP with DCA, GSA, and EPA Market Needs Assessment l Has extensively discussed market needs with numerous organizations.

l High interest in paints, cleaners, oils and lubricants, adhesives, and inks.

l Since EPP is a regulatory driven concept, the " need' within market sectors will be as broad and as deep as the regulatory agencies demand.

Recommendations None described Other Issues CCS is prepared to work either with EPA and other appropriate federal agencies, or with a nongovernmental standards development organization, to refine its computerized resources and software to support environmentally preferable purchasing.

Commenter Consumer's Choice Council Products/ Sectors Represented Consumer products Standards Activities None described Environmental Attribute Activities None described Market Needs Assessment None described Recommendations l EPA should encourage federal agencies to take advantage of the existing expertise of Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 13 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Back to top advantage of the existing expertise of organizations ( e. g., GreenSeal, the Forest Stewardship Council, and Canada's Environmental Choice Program) that use " leadership standards."

l Environmental preferability should be determined through leadership standards, not consensus standards.

Other Issues l Use of consensus standards is inconsistent with E. O. 13101 and would delay federal agencies' implementation of their EPP responsibilities.

l NTTAA, OMB A 119, and ISO 14024 do not require use of consensus standards.

Commenter Logistics Management Institute Products/ Sectors Represented Not described Standards Activities Does not develop voluntary standards Environmental Attribute Activities Works with clients to " green" their product specifications and to incorporate environmental considerations into their daily practices Market Needs Assessment Not addressed Recommendations l Reviewing and using existing standards is an excellent starting point because it allows the government to determine which markets are most suited for consensus based standards.

l EPA should convene key stakeholders to explore this very complex issue further.

l EPA could develop standards for the process of evaluating products.

Other Issues l The time it takes to develop standards.

l The complexity of environmental attributes to consider over the product lifecycle.

l Lack of agreement on the criteria and the process for weighing those criteria.

l The potential to hinder flexibility and innovation because standards are difficult to change and are viewed as endpoints.

l Waiting for standards could seriously delay the government's progress in green purchasing. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Side by Side Summary Page 14 of 14 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Pollution Prevention Home | OPPT Home EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us Last updated on Friday, May 9th, 2003 URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frside2side. htm


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46937]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2387-000]

City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Notice of
Authorization for Continued Project Operation

    On August 31, 2016, City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department,
licensee for the Holyoke Number 2 Hydroelectric Project, filed an
Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA)
and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Holyoke Number 2
Hydroelectric Project is located between the first and second level
canals on the Holyoke Canal System adjacent to the Connecticut River,
in the city of Holyoke in Hampton County, Massachusetts.
    The license for Project No. 2387 was issued for a period ending
August 31, 2018. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2387 is issued to
the licensee for a period effective September 1, 2018 through August
31, 2019, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
August 30, 2019, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the licensee, City of Holyoke Gas and Electric
Department, is authorized to continue operation of the Holyoke Number 2
Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its
application for a subsequent license.

    Dated: September 11, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20103 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12096-12098]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4686]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66439; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Certain External and Inter-Cabinet Connectivity Fees

February 22, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 14, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify certain external and inter-cabinet
connectivity fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's principal office,
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7034(b) to reduce fees for low
latency connectivity to Toronto and Chicago venues; and to increase
certain fees for other forms of connectivity.
Low Latency Connectivity
    On December 20, 2011, the Commission approved the Exchange's
offering of low latency point-to-point telecommunications connectivity
from the Exchange's co-location facility to select financial trading
and co-location venues in the metropolitan New York/New Jersey area,
Toronto, and Chicago.\3\ The enhanced point-to-point connectivity
provides the Exchange's co-location customers the opportunity to obtain
low latency network connectivity with greater ease and at a competitive
price.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66013 (December 20,
2011), 76 FR 80992 (December 27, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-146).
    \4\ Id. at 80992.

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

    The Exchange now proposes a pass-through reduction in the fees for
connectivity to Toronto and Chicago venues as follows: (1) For 100MB
connectivity to the Toronto area, a reduction of the installation fee
from $5,150 to $4,850, and a reduction of the per-month connectivity
fee from $4,350 to $4,100; (2) for 1G connectivity to the Toronto area,
a reduction of the installation fee from $8,200 to $7,700, and a
reduction of the per-month connectivity fee from $10,450 to $9,850; (3)
for 10G connectivity to the Toronto area, a reduction of the
installation fee from $15,150 to $14,200, and a reduction of the per-
month connectivity fee from $32,400 to $28,400; (4) for 100MB
connectivity to the Chicago area, a reduction of the installation fee
from $4,850 to $3,500, and a reduction of the per-month connectivity
fee from $8,350 to $7,350; (5) for 1G connectivity to the Chicago area,
a reduction of the installation fee from $5,900 to $4,900, and a
reduction of the per-month connectivity fee from $16,400 to $12,800;
(6) for 10G connectivity to the Chicago area, a reduction of the
installation fee from of [sic] $12,050 to $10,650, and a reduction of
the per-month connectivity fee from $39,750 to $26,900.
    The reductions in fees are the result of the Exchange obtaining a
reduction in the fees charged to the Exchange by the Toronto and
Chicago low latency telecommunication carriers. The Exchange is passing
along the entire savings of the reduction in fees to the subscribers of
the Toronto and Chicago low latency connectivity service.
Increasing the 1Gb Connectivity Fees to NASDAQ
    The Exchange further proposes to raise the per-month 1Gb fiber
connectivity fee to the NASDAQ data center from $500 to $1,000. The
Exchange also proposes to raise the one-time installation fee for the
1Gb copper connectivity to the NASDAQ data center from $100 to $1,000,
and the per-month connectivity fee from $250 to $1,000. Due to the
Exchange's continued efforts to upgrade its networks, the cost to
maintain the 1G network connections and infrastructure continues to
grow. The increased fees serve to cover the increased costs associated
with maintaining the 1Gb connections and the related infrastructure.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ 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 Exchange believes
the proposed fees are reasonable and equitable for the reasons below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Low Latency Connectivity
    In SR-NASDAQ-2011-146,\7\ the Commission determined that the
original fees established for low latency connectivity were reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the connectivity
options are uniformly available to all members that opt to pay for
them, because they enable the Exchange to cover its costs, because they
are comparable to fees charged by other trading venues for comparable
services, and because they are designed to promote competition by
offering members additional service options. These determinations apply
with equal weight to the reduced fees, which enhance the reasonableness
and competitiveness of the service by passing on the reduction in low
latency connectivity fees to the Toronto and Chicago venues to the
members that opt to receive the connectivity options in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66013 (December 20,
2011), 76 FR 80992 (December 27, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-146).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increasing the 1Gb Connectivity Fee
    The Exchange believes the proposal to increase the 1Gb connectivity
to NASDAQ is reasonable because the costs are associated with the
Exchange's continued efforts to upgrade its networks by maintaining the
1Gb network connections and infrastructure as the need for such
connections continues to grow. The costs associated with operating a
co-location facility, like the costs of operating the electronic
trading facility with which the co-location facility is associated, are
primarily fixed costs, and in the case of co-location are primarily the
costs of renting or owning data center space and retaining a staff of
technical personnel. Accordingly, the Exchange establishes a range of
co-location fees with the goal of covering these fixed costs, covering
less significant marginal costs, such as the cost of electricity, and
providing the Exchange a profit to the extent the costs are covered. In
this instance, the current fees charged for the 1Gb network connections
does [sic] not cover the costs of maintaining the connections,
resulting in a loss for the Exchange on this service. The Exchange is
proposing to raise the fees for the 1Gb network connections to cover
its costs, and to the extent the costs are covered, allow the Exchange
to earn a profit.
    More specifically, the Exchange proposes to raise the per-month 1Gb
fiber connectivity fee to the NASDAQ data center from $500 to $1,000 to
cover the increasing cost to continually improve this lower bandwidth
network, which includes continuous improvements in reducing latency,
upgrading equipment, and adding functionality to this network. The cost
to maintain this lower bandwidth network also continues to rise as the
network gets older, equipment must be replaced and resources must be
dedicated to monitor and ensure any issues are dealt with quickly and
do not cause any client outages or connectivity issues. Due to the
continuous growth of the size of consolidated and proprietary market
data feeds that can be provided over these 1G network connections, as
per client request, additional NASDAQ network resources are required to
monitor and interface with clients when data spikes and data gapping
issues occur. The Exchange has not increased the fees for these
services in over six years, while the costs have continued to rise.
    The Exchange also proposes to raise the one-time installation fee
for the 1Gb copper connectivity to the NASDAQ data center from $100 to
$1,000 to cover the increasing costs to install connections to this
lower bandwidth network. The copper installation requires the same
amount of resources, tools, and time to install, enable data and test
connectivity as the fiber installation which is already priced at
$1,000. While the costs have increased, the Exchange has not adjusted
the price on this connection for more than six years.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to raise the per-month 1Gb
copper connectivity to the NASDAQ data center from $250 to $1,000 to
cover the increasing costs to improve and maintain this lower bandwidth
network, which includes continuous improvements in reducing latency,
upgrading equipment, and adding functionality to this network. The cost
to maintain this lower bandwidth network also continues to rise as the
network gets older, equipment must be replaced and resources must be
dedicated to monitor and ensure any issues are dealt with quickly and
do not cause any client outages or connectivity issues. Due to the
continuous growth of the size of consolidated and proprietary

market data feeds that can be provided over these 1G network
connections, as per client request, additional NASDAQ network resources
are required to monitor and interface with clients when data spikes and
data gapping issues occur. The Exchange has not increased the fees for
these services in over six years, while the costs have continued to
rise. In addition, the copper connections provide the same services and
latency as the fiber connections. NASDAQ proposes to standardize the
fees for these connections as it does with the inter-cabinet
connectivity fees of this rule.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable
in that NASDAQ's proposed fees are less than those charged by other
trading venues for comparable services.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63275 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010)(SR-NYSEArca-2010-100) at page
70049. The Exchange's proposed monthly fee of $1,000 for a 1Gb is
less than NYSE's fee of $5,000 for the same bandwidth connection to
the data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposed increase in the fees for
the 1Gb connectivity to NASDAQ, both fiber and copper, is equitably
allocated and non-discriminatory in that all NASDAQ members have the
option of selecting the 1Gb connections to NASDAQ and there is no
differentiation among members with regard to the fees charged for such
costs.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that its changes with respect to fees
for the 1Gb connectivity will not burden competition because the
applicable fees remain competitive with those charged by other venues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-025 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-NASDAQ-2012-025. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2012-025, and should be submitted on or before March 20, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4686 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 34676]
[DOCID:fr25jn07-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11910-002 Oregon]

 Applegate Dam; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

June 15, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18
CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), Office of Energy Projects
staff have reviewed Symbiotics, LLC's application for the proposed
Applegate Dam Project and prepared this environmental assessment (EA).
The proposed project would be located at the existing U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' (Corps) Applegate dam located at river mile 45.7 on the
Applegate River, near the town of Medford, in Jackson County, Oregon.
The proposed project facilities would occupy 7.1 acres of federal land
administered by the Corps below and adjacent to the dam. In addition,
the project boundary would include 2.32 acres of National Forest System
land and 0.66 acre of U.S. Bureau of Land Management land.
    This EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential
future environmental effects of the project. Staff has concluded that
licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA 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, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice and should be addressed to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Please affix ``Applegate Dam Project No. 11910-002'' to all
comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu
of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-filing'' link.

    Please contact Tim Looney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you have any questions.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12191 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P