[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21291-21292]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9461]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0535; FRL-9141-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (Renewal), EPA ICR
Number 1790.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0361

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0535, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 30, 2009 (74 FR 38005), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0535, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate
Fertilizers Production (Renewal)
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1790.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0361.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate
Fertilizers Production were: proposed on December 27, 1996; promulgated
on June 10, 1999; and amended on June 12, 2002.
    Owners/operators of affected phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizer production must submit one-time only notifications
(where applicable) and annual reports on performance test results.
Semiannual reports are required. In addition, a quarterly report is
required when excess emissions occur. Subparts AA and BB require
respondents to install monitoring devices to measure the pressure drop
and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers. These operating parameters are
permitted to vary within ranges determined concurrently with
performance tests. Exceedances of the operating ranges are considered
violations of the site-specific operating limits. The standards require
sources to determine and record the amount of phosphatic feedstock
material processed or stored on a daily basis. Respondents also
maintain records of specific information needed to determine that the
standards are being achieved and maintained.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 18
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually and
annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,534.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $154,929, which includes $144,297 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and

$10,632 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the calculation
methodology for labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR.
This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed
over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the
next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the respondents is very
low, negative or non-existent. However, due to a mathematical
correction, there is a decrease of eight hours in respondent labor
hours.
    This ICR has been updated with the most recent available labor
rates for each of the three labor categories. There is an increase in
both respondent and Agency costs resulting from labor rate increases
from 2003 to 2009. This ICR uses 2009 labor rates because burden and
cost calculations in Tables 1 and 2 of this ICR were expanded to
include managerial and clerical labor rates, and the previous ICR only
provided a technical labor rate. The cost figure has also been updated
to the nearest dollar, whereas the previous ICR rounded the figure to
the nearest thousand dollar.

    Dated: April 20, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-9461 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35652-35653]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG 2010-0365]

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Vallejo, Vallejo,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Fourth of July Fireworks,
City of Vallejo, safety zone from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4,
2010 in position 38[deg]05'54.83'' N. 122[deg]16'01.69'' W. This action
is necessary to control vessel traffic and to ensure the safety of
event participants and spectators. During the enforcement period,
unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized
by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 9 a.m.
through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Simone Mausz U.S.

Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail: D11-PF-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Vallejo, safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.1191 on July 4, 2010, from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. During
the fireworks display. The fireworks will be located on Mare Island
adjacent to the dry docks in position
    38[deg]05'54.83'' N. 122[deg]16'01.69'' W.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order of direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The
PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels
through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she
may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 11, 2010.
P.M. Gugg,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2010-15199 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 26056]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10671]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

LocatePlus Holdings Corporation; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 30, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
LocatePlus Holdings Corporation (``LocatePlus'') because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2011.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company, and any equity securities of
any entity purporting to succeed to this issuer. Therefore, it is
ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Exchange Act, that trading in
the securities of the above-listed company, and any equity securities
of any entity purporting to succeed to this issuer, is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 30, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on May 11, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10671 Filed 4-30-12; 4:15 pm]
P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10741-10742]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
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, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Communication
                 Docket No.                         date                     Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   PROHIBITED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P-13226 & P-13368........................           1-31-12  Lori Barg.
2. CP07-444-000.............................            2-2-12  CitizenLetter.\1\
3. P-12790-000..............................            2-6-12  Karen Reddington-Hughes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     EXEMPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP11-56-000..............................           1-26-12  Commission Staff.\2\
2. P-12632-000..............................           1-27-12  Members of Congress.\3\
3. CP11-72-00...............................           1-31-12  Hon. Mary L. Landrieu.
4. P-13226-003 & P-13368-002................            2-1-12  Commission Staff.\4\
5. P-459-000................................            2-1-12  Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer.
6. P-2662-000...............................            2-3-12  Commission Staff.\5\
7. P-2790-055...............................            2-6-12  Hon. Niki Tsongas.
8. CP11-56-000..............................            2-8-12  Hon. Albio Sires.
9. CP09-444-000.............................            2-8-12  Hon. Scott Garrett.
10. P-1267-000..............................            2-9-12  Hon. Jim DeMint.
11. ER12-188-000............................            2-9-12  Hon. Al Franken.
12. P-13226-000.............................           2-10-12  Members of Congress.\6\

13. CP12-29-000.............................           2-10-12  Hon. Ron Paul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A two form letters were received on February 2 & 14, 2012.
\2\ Email record.
\3\ Ten members of Congress signed this letter.
\4\ Telephone record.
\5\ Email record.
\6\ Three members of Congress signed this letter.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4183 Filed 2-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 25, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	John Bradfield, EPA - OAQPS

SUBJECT:	October 23, 2014 Meeting between Joe Goffman, EPA and South Carolina Electric Utilities Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY
On October 23, 2014, Joe Goffman met with Utility Executives from South Carolina to discuss issues concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, natural gas infrastructure and nuclear power facilities that are under construction.  Attached is a joint letter from the executives that was sent to the administrator prior to the meeting.

Attendees
Lonnie Carter President & CEO, Santee Cooper
Pamela Williams, Senior Vice President of Corporate Services, Santee Cooper
Mike Couick, President & CEO, Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina
Rob Hochstetler, President and CEO, Central Electric Power Cooperative
Kevin Marsh, Chairman and CEO, SCANA Corporation
Tom Effinger , Director, Environmental Services , SCANA Corporation
Michael Hacker, Counsel, HDMK
Joe Goffman, EPA


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27385]
[DOCID:fr14my10-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

United Railroad Historical Society of New Jersey

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0079]

    The United Railroad Historical Society of New Jersey (URHS) of
Jackson, New Jersey, has petitioned for a permanent waiver of
compliance for six passenger cars from the requirements of the Railroad
Safety Glazing Standards, Title 49 CFR Part 223, which require
certified glazing in all windows. The identifying mark, type of car,
year built, number of windows and the estimated replacement glazing
cost for each car are as follows:
     New York Central ``Hickory Creek,'' Observation/Lounge/
Sleeper, 1948, 28, $35,000.
     New York Central No. 43, Tavern/Lounge, 1947, 25, $30,000.
     New York Central No. 37, Tavern/Lounge, 1947, 25, $30,000.
     Pennsylvania Railroad 1547, Coach/Lounge, 1949, 25,
$28,000.
     URHS 326, Coach, 1950, 26, $30,000.
     URHS 329, Coach, 1953, 33, $33,000.
    URHS has collected this historic equipment so as to operate it in
conjunction with a future New Jersey Transportation Heritage Center.
Part of this effort includes operating these cars on various short line
railroads. For example, the New York Central ``Hickory Creek'' and the
New York Central No. 43 periodically (10 trips/year) operate from New
York, to various other destinations in the country. The other four
cars: The New York Central No. 37, Pennsylvania Railroad 1547, URHS 326
and URHS 329 are operated on the Cape May Seashore Lines between
Richland and Tuckahoe (15 miles); and between Cape May Court House and
Cape May, New Jersey (13 miles), with a maximum speed of 30 mph. These
cars were restored over the past 10 years, and all are equipped with
laminated safety plate glazing.
    URHS states that they are a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and
have little income so that it would be prohibitive for them to re-equip
these cars with the FRA certified glazing per provisions of 49 CFR
223.15 Requirements for existing passenger cars. They are therefore
seeking a waiver of compliance from provisions that require certified
glazing for the passenger cars listed above, and presently located in
Tuckahoe and Lebanon, New Jersey.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0079) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 10, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-11577 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 11/15/2007 11:33 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

FW: Nov 15 Call on the Ozone Naaqs RIA

FYI/ DOC has provided the following slides on modeling extrapolated

costs.

Cheers,

Rob


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50622-50626]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20504]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0851; FRL-9715-3]

Land Disposal Restrictions: Site-Specific Treatment Variance for
Hazardous Selenium-Bearing Waste Treated by U.S. Ecology Nevada in
Beatty, NV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA (or the Agency) is granting a site-specific treatment
variance, under the Land Disposal Restrictions program, to U.S. Ecology
Nevada in Beatty, Nevada for the treatment of a hazardous selenium-
bearing waste generated by the Owens-Brockway Glass Container Company
in Vernon, California. The Agency has determined that the chemical
properties of the waste generated by the Owens-Brockway Glass Container
Corporation differ significantly from the waste used in developing the
Land Disposal Restrictions treatment standard for selenium-bearing
wastes, and as such cannot be treated to the specified treatment level
of 5.7 mg/L for selenium, as measured by the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The site-specific treatment variance
provides an alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/L TCLP for
selenium, with the condition that the waste-to-reagent ratio not exceed
1:0.45.

DATES: This final rule will be effective August 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0851. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly available, because for example, it
may be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information,
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
Docket Facility 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 RCRA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Jesse Miller, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (MC
5304 P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (703) 308-
0522; or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies only to U.S. Ecology Nevada located in
Beatty, Nevada.

B. Table of Contents

I. Background

    A. Basis for Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Variances
    B. Basis of the Current Selenium Treatment Standard
II. Basis for Today's Determination
III. Development of This Variance
    A. U.S. Ecology Nevada Petition
    B. Notices on Granting a Site Specific Treatment Variance to
USEN
IV. Granting USEN a Site Specific Treatment Variance
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Basis for Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Variances

    Under sections 3004(d) through (g) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the land disposal of hazardous wastes is
prohibited unless such wastes are able to meet the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards (or treatment standards)
established by EPA (or the Agency). Under section 3004(m) of RCRA, EPA
is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if any, which
substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the
waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized.'' EPA interprets this language to authorize
treatment standards based on the performance of the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was upheld by the D.C.
Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355
(D.C. Cir. 1989).
    The Agency recognizes, however, that there may be wastes that
cannot be treated to the levels specified in the regulations (see 40
CFR 268.40) because an individual waste matrix or concentration can be
substantially more difficult to treat than those wastes evaluated in
establishing the treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986)
.\1\ For such wastes, EPA has a process by which a generator or treater
may seek a treatment variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the
terms of the variance establish an alternative treatment standard for
the particular waste at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Sec.  268.44(a)(1), a petitioner may obtain a
site-specific variance if ``it is not physically possible to treat
the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard, or by
the method specified as the treatment standard. To show that this is
the case, the petitioner must demonstrate that the physical or
chemical properties of the waste differ significantly from waste
analyzed in developing the treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated to the specified level or by the specified method.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Basis of the Current Selenium Treatment Standard

    Treatment of selenium poses special difficulties. In particular, it
can be technically challenging to treat wastes containing selenium in
combination with other metals e.g., cadmium, lead and/or chromium
because of their different chemical properties and solubility curves
(62 FR 26041, May 12, 1997).
    The current treatment standard for a waste exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic for selenium (RCRA Hazardous Waste D010) is based upon
the performance of stabilization on low concentration selenium wastes.
When the Agency developed the treatment standard for selenium, EPA
believed that wastes containing high concentrations of selenium were
rarely generated and land disposed (59 FR 47980, September 19, 1994).
The Agency also stated that it believed that, for most wastes
containing high concentrations of selenium, recovery of the selenium
would be feasible using recovery technologies currently employed by
copper smelters and copper refining operations (Id.). The Agency
further stated in 1994, that it did not have any performance data for
selenium recovery, but available information indicated that some
recovery of elemental selenium out of certain types of scrap material
and other wastes was practiced in the United States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because selenium is a non-renewable resource, and because
the wastes in question contain high selenium concentrations, EPA's
preference would be to recover the selenium in an environmentally
sound manner. However, based on information contained in the Mineral
Commodity Summaries 2010 published by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of domestic production
of secondary selenium is estimated to be very small because most of
the materials eligible for possible secondary smelting (e.g., scrap
xerographic and electronic materials) were exported for recovery of
the contained selenium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, the Agency used performance data from the stabilization of
a mineral processing waste, that was characteristically hazardous (RCRA
Hazardous Waste D010), to set the national treatment standard for
selenium. At that time, we determined that this characteristically-
hazardous mineral processing waste represented the most difficult-to-
treat selenium waste. This untreated waste contained up to 700 ppm
total selenium and 3.74 mg/L selenium, as measured by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The resulting post-treatment
levels of selenium in the TCLP leachate were between 0.154 mg/L and
1.80 mg/L, which (after considering the range of treatment process
variability) led to EPA establishing a national treatment standard of
5.7 mg/L TCLP for D010 selenium nonwastewaters.\3\ In the Phase IV LDR
final rule, the Agency determined that a treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L
TCLP, continued to be appropriate for D010 nonwastewaters (63 FR 28556,
May 26, 1998). The Agency also changed the universal treatment standard
(UTS) for selenium nonwastewaters from 0.16 mg/L to 5.7 mg/L TCLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The calculation of the LDR treatment standard was based on a
specific method, sometimes called ``C 99,'' which has been used in
other LDR rulemakings. This methodology seeks to account for process
variability (including variability that may be attributed to
sampling and analytical processes). See 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998
and the document, Final--Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) Background Document for Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Procedures and Methodology, USEPA. October 23, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Basis for Today's Determination

    Under 40 CFR 268.44, facilities can apply for a site-specific
treatment variance in cases where a waste that is generated under
conditions specific to only one site cannot be treated to the specified
LDR treatment standards. In such cases, the generator(s) or the
treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or to EPA's
designated representative, (in this case the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response) for a site-specific variance.
The applicant for a site-specific variance must demonstrate that,
because the physical or chemical properties of the waste differ
significantly from the waste analyzed in developing the treatment
standard, the waste cannot be treated to the specified levels or by the
specified methods. There are other grounds for obtaining variances, but
this is the only provision relevant to this action.

III. Development of This Variance

A. U.S. Ecology Nevada Petition

    On September 16, 2008, U.S. Ecology Nevada (USEN) in Beatty, Nevada
submitted a petition requesting a site-specific treatment variance from
the LDR treatment standards for hazardous selenium-bearing waste
generated by the Owens-Brockway Glass Container Company (Owens-
Brockway) in Vernon, California. Owens-Brockway operates a glass
manufacturing facility that generates approximately 50 to 100 tons per
year of electrostatic precipitator (ESP) dust requiring management as a
hazardous waste. The ESP dust is generated by the glass furnace air
emissions control system and is hazardous due to its high
concentrations of leachable arsenic (RCRA Hazardous Waste D004),
cadmium (RCRA Hazardous Waste D006), lead (RCRA Hazardous Waste D008),
and selenium (RCRA Hazardous Waste D010). USEN submitted analytical
data demonstrating that the chemical properties of the waste differed
significantly from the waste analyzed in developing the LDR treatment
standard.\4\ They also submitted data demonstrating that the waste
could not be treated to the specified level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP for
selenium. USEN requested an alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/L
TCLP, which was calculated using analytical treatment data from a
stabilization mixture of ferrous sulfate, quick lime and sodium sulfide
flakes with a 1:0.45 waste to reagent ratio.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Total selenium concentrations in the electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) dust generated at the Owens-Brockway facility
range from 2,400 mg/kg to 5,700 mg/kg. The untreated waste has a
leachable selenium concentration ranging from 228 mg/L to 440 mg/L
TCLP. In addition, the untreated waste has a leachable arsenic
concentration ranging from 3.3 mg/L to 8.6 mg/L TCLP, a leachable
cadmium concentration ranging from 3.9 mg/L to 11.0 mg/L TCLP, and a
leachable lead concentration ranging from <0.10 mg/L to 16.3 mg/L
TCLP.
    \5\ The selenium concentrations used to calculate the
alternative treatment standard were (in mg/L TCLP) 49.34, 51.39,
49.39, 43.91, and 54.34. The most effective treatment recipe was
determined using a 50 gram sample of waste where reagents were
listed as a percent of waste sample weight. For example, 20% ferrous
sulfate, 15% quick lime, and 10% sodium sulfide flakes would measure
out as 10 grams of ferrous sulfate, 7.5 grams of quick lime, and 5
grams of sodium sulfide flakes for a total of 22.5 grams of total
reagent. The waste to reagent ratio was then calculated by dividing
22.5 by 50 to get a waste to reagent ratios of 1:0.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Notices on Granting a Site Specific Treatment Variance to USEN

    On April 6, 2011, the Agency issued a Direct Final rule (76 FR
18921) and a parallel Proposal (76 FR 19003) granting a site-specific
treatment variance to USEN for the treatment and disposal of hazardous
selenium-bearing waste generated by Owens-Brockway. The site-specific
treatment variance provided for an alternative treatment standard of 59
mg/L TCLP with the condition that the waste to reagent ratio not exceed
1:0.45. The Agency concluded that USEN had demonstrated that the
chemical properties of the waste generated by Owens-Brockway differed
significantly from the waste analyzed in developing the LDR treatment
standard, and that the waste could not be treated to the specified
level of 5.7 mg/L TCLP for selenium, necessitating an alternative
treatment standard.
    The Direct Final rule and the parallel Proposal also included an
action to withdraw the site-specific treatment variance issued to
Chemical Waste Management (CWM) in Kettleman Hills, California for this
same waste.\6\ The Agency issued both a Direct Final and a parallel
Proposal because EPA considered these actions to be non-controversial.
However, EPA stated that if adverse comment was received, the Direct
Final rule would be withdrawn and we would proceed with a subsequent
final rule. The Agency received no comments on granting a site-specific
treatment variance to USEN, however, one adverse comment was received
on withdrawing the CWM variance. As a result, on May 24, 2011, the
Direct Final rule was withdrawn (76 FR 30027). The comment can be found
in the docket supporting this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA considered that technology-based treatment standards,
whether adopted by generally applicable rule or through a variance
to the generally applicable rule, serve as the measure of when
threats posed by land disposal of the hazardous waste are
``minimized,'' as required by RCRA section 3004(m). See 55 FR 6640
(February 26, 1990). Thus, EPA has typically limited the standards
adopted by a variance to a single standard. See 70 FR 44505 (August
3, 2005). We continued this practice by issuing a Direct Final rule
and parallel Proposal to withdraw the current variance granted to
CWM (69 FR 6567, February 11, 2004), determining that the treatment
standard issued to CWM is less stringent than the standard we would
be granting, both with respect to potential concentrations of
selenium released to the environment and also the waste to reagent
ratios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is not taking action on the proposal to withdraw the existing
site-specific treatment variance granted to CWM. EPA has authorized the
State of California to grant and administer site-specific treatment
variances under 40 CFR 268.44. [See 75 FR at 60401 (September 10,
2010)]. As a result, California now has sole authority to deal with
issues pertaining to treatment variances for entities within its
borders, including whether to withdraw the treatment variance to CWM
for Owens-Brockway selenium-bearing waste, and any other issues related
to that treatment variance.\7\ Necessarily, therefore, EPA is not
responding to any of the comments submitted on this issue, since all
comments pertain to issues within the scope of the authorized
California program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It should be noted that EPA is making a conforming change to
footnote 7 of the table in section 40 CFR 268.44. The footnote
originally read, ``D010 wastes generated by these two facilities
must be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at their
Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, California.'' The two
facilities referred to Owens-Brockway and a second facility, St.
Gobain Containers, El Monte, CA, that also has an existing variance
for selenium waste. The footnote now reads, ``D010 wastes generated
by this facility must be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
at its Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City, California.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Granting USEN a Site-Specific Treatment Variance

    EPA is promulgating, as proposed, a site-specific treatment
variance, from the LDR treatment standards, for hazardous selenium
bearing waste generated by Owens-Brockway and managed by USEN of
Beatty, Nevada. With the information provided to the Agency as part of
their petition, EPA has concluded that the chemical properties of Owen-
Brockway's selenium-bearing waste differ significantly from the waste
used in developing the LDR treatment standard and that the generated
waste cannot be treated to the specified treatment level of 5.7 mg/L
TCLP. The site-specific treatment variance provides an alternative
treatment standard of 59 mg/L for selenium with the condition that the
waste to reagent ratio not exceed 1:0.45 when the waste is treated and
disposed at USEN's permitted hazardous waste facility. The Agency
received no comments disagreeing with the Agency's proposal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action grants a site-specific treatment variance to USEN for the
treatment of hazardous selenium-bearing waste generated by Owens-
Brockway under RCRA's LDR program. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR
268.42 and .44 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0085. The
OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This site-specific treatment variance does not create any new
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard
for a specific waste that applies to only one facility, USEN located in
Beatty, Nevada. Therefore, we hereby certify that this rule will not
add any new regulatory requirements to small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. This action would not impose
any new duties on the states hazardous waste program. EPA has
determined, therefore, that this rule would not contain regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments in that the authority for this action exists with the
Federal government. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. This rule 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. This action grants a site-
specific treatment variance applicable to one facility. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 would not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action would not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action is a
site-specific treatment variance that applies to only one facility,
which is not a tribal facility or located on tribal lands. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 would not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

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

    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 would
not be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The site-specific treatment variance being finalized
applies to a selenium bearing waste that will be treated and disposed
in an existing, permitted RCRA facility, ensuring protection to human
health and the environment. Therefore, the rule will not result in any
disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income
communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule, when
finalized, and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous Waste, and Variances.

    Dated: August 10, 2012.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

0
2. In Sec.  268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the existing entry for ``Owens Brockway Glass Container
Company, Vernon, CA.''
0
b. By adding in alphabetical order an additional entry for ``Owens
Brockway Glass Container Company, Vernon, CA.''
0
c. Republishing the entry for ``St. Gobain Containers, El Monte, CA.''
0
d. By revising footnote 7.
0
e. By adding a new footnote 15.
0
f. By adding a new footnote 16.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *

                                         Table--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards under Sec.   268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Wastewaters                      Nonwastewaters
                                                                        Regulated    -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Facility name\1\ and address   Waste  code         See also            hazardous                                           Concentration (mg/
                                                                       constituent    Concentration (mg/L)      Notes               kg)           Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Owens Brockway Glass           D010           Standards under Sec.  Selenium........  NA..................  NA...........  51 mg/L TCLP........   (\15\)
 Container Company, Vernon,                      268.40.
 CA \6\.
Owens Brockway Glass           D010           Standards under Sec.  Selenium........  NA..................  NA...........  59 mg/L TCLP........   (\16\)
 Container Company, Vernon,                      268.40.
 CA \6\.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
St. Gobain Containers, El      D010           Standards under Sec.  Selenium........  NA..................  NA...........  25 mg/L TCLP........       NA
 Monte, CA5 7.                                   268.40.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.

 * * * * * * *
\5\ Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to dry scrubber solid from glass manufacturing wastes.
\6\ Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to electrostatic precipitator dust generated during glass manufacturing operations.
\7\ D010 wastes generated by this facility must be treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at its Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City,
  California.

 * * * * * * *
\15\ This alternative standard applies only to D010 wastes generated by this facility and treated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. at its Kettleman
  Hills facility in Kettleman City, California.
\16\ This alternative standard applies only to D010 wastes generated by this facility and treated by U.S. Ecology Nevada at its facility in Beatty,
  Nevada. This alternative treatment standard is conditioned on the waste-to-reagent ratio not exceeding 1 to 0.45.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-20504 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76062-76064]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30580]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63395; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-167]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Extension of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program and Replacement, on a
Semi-Annual Basis, of Penny Pilot Issues that Have Been Delisted

November 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 22, 2010, 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Phlx
Rule 1034 (Minimum Increments) to: Extend through December 31, 2011,
the Penny Pilot Program in options classes in certain issues (``Penny
Pilot'' or ``Pilot''); and replace, on a semi-annual basis, any Penny
Pilot issues that have been delisted.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007 and in
October 2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007)(SR-Phlx-2006-74)(notice of filing and
approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23, 2009),
74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009)(SR-Phlx-2009-91)(notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny Pilot); 60966
(November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009)(SR-Phlx-2009-
94)(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five
classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6233
(February 8, 2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-12)(notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62028
(May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-65)(notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); and 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR 47664 (August 6,
2010)(SR-Phlx-2010-103)(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Website at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, 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 purpose of this filing is to amend Phlx Rule 1034 to: (1)
Extend through December 31, 2011, the Penny Pilot; and (2) replace, on
a semi-annual basis, any Penny Pilot issues that have been delisted.
    For a pilot period scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010, the
Penny Pilot allows certain options to be quoted and traded on the
Exchange in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such options
with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of $0.05 for
all series in such options with a price of $3.00 or higher. Options
overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ''),[reg] SPDR S&P 500
Exchange Traded Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds
(``IWM''), however, are quoted

and traded in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of
the price. Currently the Exchange trades 361 options classes pursuant
to the Penny Pilot.
    The Penny Pilot is a very successful and efficacious pricing
program that is beneficial to traders, investors, and public customers,
and the Exchange has received numerous requests to expand and continue
it. This proposal allows the Penny Pilot to continue in its current
format for one year through December 31, 2011.
    Commensurate with the extension of the Penny Pilot through 2011,
the Exchange proposes to extend through 2011 the ability to replace on
a semi-annual basis any Penny Pilot issues that have been delisted with
the next most actively traded multiply listed options classes that are
not yet included in the Pilot, based on trading activity in the
previous six months. The replacement issues would be added to the Pilot
on the second trading day following January 1, 2011, and July 1,
2011.\4\ The replacement issues will be selected based on trading
activity for the six month period beginning June 1, 2010 and ending
November 30, 2010, for the January 2011 replacement, and the six month
period beginning December 1, 2010 and ending May 31, 2011 for the July
2011 replacements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The replacement issues will be announced to the Exchange's
membership via an OTA posted on the Exchange's web site.
    \5\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with this extension proposal, the Exchange agrees to
submit a report to the Commission regarding the Penny Pilot that will
include: (1) Data and analysis on the number of quotations generated
for options included in the report; (2) an assessment of the quotation
spreads for the options included in the report; (3) an assessment of
the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of Phlx's automated
systems; (4) data reflecting the size and depth of markets; and (5) any
capacity problems or other problems that arose related to the operation
of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by extending the Penny Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Penny Pilot is a very successful and
efficacious pricing program that is beneficial to traders, investors,
and public customers, and the Exchange has received numerous requests
to expand and continue it. This proposal allows the Penny Pilot to
continue in its current format for one year through December 31, 2011.

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 Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \9\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

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-2010-167 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-2010-167. 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 website 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2010-167 and should be
submitted on or before December 28, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30580 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7784]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02145]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Board Subcommittee Meeting

TIME AND DATE:  February 4, 2021, from Noon to 2:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE:  This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via
Zoom Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-
205-6099 (U.S. Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (U.S. Toll) or (ii) 1-877-853-
5247 (U.S. Toll Free) or 1-888-788-0099 (U.S. Toll Free), Meeting ID:
988 1565 4454, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website
to participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/j/98815654454.

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Education and Training Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will
continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting
will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
[rtarr8] Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on
agenda

IV. Review and Approval of Minutes From the December 17, 2020 Meeting--
Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    Draft minutes from the December 17, 2020 Subcommittee meeting via
teleconference will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action
to approve.

V. Audit Module Development Discussion With the Education and Training
Subcommittee--UCR Operations Director

    The Subcommittee will discuss and provide updates on development of
the Audit Module.

VI. Discussion of the Audit Module Subject Matter Expert Interview--UCR
Depository Manager

    The Subcommittee will discuss and provide comments on the
interviews conducted with Audit subject matter experts.

VII. Other Items--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items the committee
members would like to discuss.

VIII. Adjournment--Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
January 28, 2021 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2021-02145 Filed 1-28-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P