[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75635-75636]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No.FDA-2012-N-1181]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Medicated Feed Mill License Application; Extension

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension and to allow 60 days for public
comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the
medicated feed mill licensing system.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by February 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PIFO-410B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information,

including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To
comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed
collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Medicated Feed Mill Licensing Application--21 CFR Part 515 (OMB Control
Number 0910-0337)--Extension

    The Animal Drug Availability Act (ADAA) of October 9, 1996, amended
section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to replace the
system for the approval of specific medicated feed with a general
licensing system for feed mills. Before passage of the ADAA, medicated
feed manufacturers were required to obtain approval of Medicated Feed
Applications (MFAs) in order to manufacture certain types of medicated
feeds. An individual approved MFA was required for each and every
applicable medicated feed. The ADAA streamlined the paperwork process
for gaining approval to manufacture medicated feeds by replacing the
MFA system with a facility license for each medicated feed
manufacturing facility. Implementing regulations are at 21 CFR part
515.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
   21 CFR section and activity       Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicated Feed Mill License                   20               1              20             .25               5
 Application Using Form FDA 3448
 (Sec.   515.10(b)).............
Supplemental Feed Mill License                40               1              40             .25              10
 Application Using Form FDA 3448
 (Sec.   515.11(b)).............
Voluntary Revocation of                       40               1              40             .25              10
 Medicated Feed Mill License
 (Sec.   515.23)................
Filing a Request for a Hearing                 1               1               1            4                  4
 on Medicated Feed Mill License
 (Sec.   515.30(c)).............
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                           21 CFR section                               Number of      responses per     Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records        recordkeeper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of Records for Approved Labeling for Each ``Type B''                950                1              950             0.03             28.5
 and ``Type C'' Labeling (Sec.   510.305)..........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

    Estimated annual reporting burden on industry is 29 hours as shown
in table 1. Industry estimates it takes about 15 minutes (.25) to
submit the application. We estimate 100 original and supplemental
applications, and voluntary revocations for a total of 25 hours (100
submissions x .25 (15 minutes)). An additional 4 hours is added for the
rare notice of opportunity for a hearing to not approve or revoke an
application. Finally, we estimate 28.5 hours for maintaining and
retrieving labels as required by 21 CFR 510.305. We estimated .03 hours
for each of approximately 950 licensees. Total burden for reporting and
recordkeeping would be 57.5 hours.

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-30738 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64004-64007]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98360; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule

September 12, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 31, 2023, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \4\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to make orders that add non-displayed volume in securities
priced at or below $1.00 per share eligible to receive the Sub-Dollar
Rebate Tier. This change in the Fee Schedule would make all executions
that add volume eligible for the Sub-Dollar Rebate when a Member
reaches the applicable criteria, regardless of whether such added
volume is displayed or non-displayed.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to
which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on
publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange
currently has more than approximately 15% of the total market share of
executed

volume of equities trading.\5\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and
highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow, and the
Exchange currently represents approximately 3% of the overall market
share.\6\ The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it provides rebates to Members that add liquidity to the
Exchange and charges fees to Members that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. The Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and fees
applied per share for orders that add and remove liquidity,
respectively. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or lower fees where certain
volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an
incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Market share percentage calculated as of August 31, 2023.
The Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange provides a rebate of 0.15% of the total
dollar value of the transaction for executions of orders in securities
priced below $1.00 per share that add displayed liquidity to the
Exchange (such orders, ``Added Displayed Sub-Dollar Volume'') for
Members that qualify for such tier by achieving a Sub-Dollar ADAV \7\
that is equal to or greater than 5,000,000 shares. A footnote in the
current Fee Schedule states that the Sub-Dollar Rebate applies to
executions of added displayed volume in securities priced below $1.00
per share. Thus, the Sub-Dollar Rebate does not currently apply to
executions of added non-displayed volume that add liquidity to the
Exchange (such orders, ``Added Non-Displayed Sub-Dollar Volume''). Now,
the Exchange proposes to modify the types of orders which qualify for
the Sub-Dollar Rebate, such that orders which add displayed liquidity
as well as orders which add non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange in
securities priced below $1.00 per share would be eligible for the Sub-
Dollar Rebate. To clarify, the Sub-Dollar Rebate would apply to
executions of both Added Displayed Sub-Dollar Volume and Added Non-
Displayed Sub-Dollar Volume when a Member meets the required criteria
for the tier. The Exchange would alter the footnote in the Sub-Dollar
Rebate Tier section of the Fee Schedule to remove the word
``displayed'', such that all executions which add volume to the
Exchange would be eligible for the Sub-Dollar Rebate. At this time, the
Exchange does not propose to change the rebate amount nor the required
criteria for the Sub-Dollar Rebate Tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Sub-Dollar ADAV'' means ADAV with respect to orders in
securities priced below $1.00 per share. ``ADAV'' means average
daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added per day,
calculated on a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this modification to the method of
applying the Sub-Dollar Rebate Tier would encourage the submission of
both displayed and non-displayed orders in securities priced below
$1.00 per share that add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that it would contribute to a more robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem of both displayed and non-displayed orders which add
liquidity on the Exchange, to the benefit of all Members and market
participants. The Exchange notes that the Sub-Dollar Rebate Tier would
continue to be available to all Members and, while the Exchange has no
way of predicting with certainty how the proposed new modification will
impact Member activity, the Exchange expects that more Members will
qualify or strive to qualify for the Sub-Dollar Rebate Tier than
currently do under the proposed new calculation method, as it is more
expansive and includes additional types of executions which would be
eligible to receive the rebate under the tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the
Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The
Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to new or different pricing structures being
introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants
can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at
those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the
proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure
designed to encourage market participants to strive for higher volume
on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price
discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to
the benefit of all Members and market participants.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives such as the Sub-
Dollar Rebate Tier have been widely adopted by exchanges (including the
Exchange), and are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis
and provide additional benefits or discount that are reasonably related
to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher
levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision
and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of
orders into the price and volume discovery process.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to include Added Non-Displayed
Sub-Dollar Volume in the executions eligible to qualify for the Sub-
Dollar Rebate is reasonable because, as noted above, such change would
keep the existing criteria and rebate amount intact and provide more
opportunities for a Member to achieve the rebate. Members may be
incentivized to submit additional orders which add displayed liquidity
and which add non-displayed

liquidity in securities priced below $1.00 per share, thereby
contributing to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. The
Exchange also believes the proposal is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Members will continue to be eligible to meet
the Sub-Dollar Rebate Tier criteria, including Members who currently
receive the Sub-Dollar Rebate under the current method. As noted above,
while the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the
proposed new criteria will impact Member activity, the Exchange expects
that this change will incentivize more Members to strive to qualify for
such tier under the proposed new method, as the new method is more
expansive and would make the Sub-Dollar Rebate applicable to additional
executions.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \11\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As
described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction
pricing is subject to significant competitive forces, and that the
proposed fees and rebates described herein are appropriate to address
such forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above,
the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct
additional order flow to the Exchange in the form of both displayed and
non-displayed liquidity in securities priced below $1.00 per share,
which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance
liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all
Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the
proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts
actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue
for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would
incentivize Members to submit additional order flow to the Exchange in
the form of both displayed and non-displayed orders in securities
priced below $1.00 per share, thereby enhancing liquidity and market
quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as
enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which
the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market
participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange,
thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all
market participants.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the Sub-
Dollar Rebate Tier would impose any burden on intramarket competition
because such change may incentivize Members to submit additional order
flow, thereby contributing to a more robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members as well as
enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which
the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market
participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange,
thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all
market participants. The opportunity to qualify for the Sub-Dollar
Rebate Tier would be available to all Members that meet the associated
volume requirements in any month. For the foregoing reasons, the
Exchange believes the proposed change would not impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative
trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no
single registered equities exchange currently has more than
approximately 15% of the total market share of executed volume of
equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into
the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees and rebates and market participants can readily choose
to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As
described above, the proposed change represents a competitive proposal
through which the Exchange is seeking to incentivize market
participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange through
the volume-based Sub-Dollar Rebate Tier. Volume-based tiers have been
widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote,
intermarket competition by enabling it to better compete with other
exchanges that offer tiered pricing structures and incentives to market
participants.
    Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \13\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the D.C. Circuit

stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\14\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed pricing change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 10.
    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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 \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MEMX-2023-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-21. 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 website (https://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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-21 and should be
submitted on or before October 10, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20081 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 50196-50197]
[DOCID:fr30se09-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609; FRL-8433-3]

Notice of Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609 and the pesticide petition number (PP)
9F7561, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0609 and the pesticide petition number (PP) 9F7561. EPA's policy
is that all comments received will be included in the docket without
change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov
website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket

materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have a typical or disproportionately high and adverse
human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice contains data or information
prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance Exemption

    PP 9F7561. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609. Syngenta Seeds Inc., P.O. Box
12257, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes to establish a
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
the Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein, when used as a plant-
incorporated protectant, in or on the food and feed commodities of
corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is being sought.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 22, 2009.
 Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-23451 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


September, 2005 Memo to Docket on Calculation Burden for Facilities Ultimately Acquiring Form A Status As part of the development of the Phase 2 burden reduction rule, it was desired to obtain comment on a new engineering estimate based approach for determining TRI burden ( see " TRI Reporting Burden Estimates" July 16,2004 from Eustice, Cooper, and Day also contained in the docket). That report developed estimates for the calculation and completion of one Form R and was subjected to a full peer review.

An analogous document was not developed for Form A, but could be estimated by using the basic building block methodology of the document. In order to provide a fair comparison between burden reduction potential estimated using the OMB approved burden estimates and those estimated by the new methodology, it was necessary to prepare such an estimate. Analysis focused exclusively on subsequent year reporters because they were the overwhelming benefactors of the proposal and only a rough number was necessary to perform this sort of generalized comparison.

Basic Assumptions  Document assumes same unit times for individual elements, regardless of whether the chemical of concern is a PBT or non PBT. The rationale was articulated in the document and is not questioned here. Times are taken from Table 7 and Table 8 of that document.

 The principal beneficiaries of both proposals will be relatively simple with respect to the chemical of concern. That is, it is assumed that complex facilities with many waste streams will be unlikely to have total waste management weights under the appropriate cut offs.

 Because these are subsequent year reporters, they will generally know whether they manufacture, process or use a chemical in excess of the alternate threshold.

 For PBTs, it is known that the majority of beneficiaries would be lead reporters. Further, it is known that the beneficiaries must have zero releases and are almost exclusively transferring lead off site for recovery. Under these conditions, there will be no additional contributors to TPRW. It will be assumed, therefore, that Section 6.2 burden estimates constitute the best estimate of time required to determine the ability to meet the PBT annual reportable amount threshold. It is worthwhile to note that three PBTs make up 98% of all potential proposal beneficiaries. The second largest category is PAC reporters. They almost exclusively burn the PACs in incinerators or as part of energy recovery. The burden associated with estimating the amount of PACs in these streams is less than that associated with off site transfer ( implying an overestimate of burden), but will be ignored for the purposes of this exercise. The third category of PBTs is mercury that is also being sent off site for recovery.

 It will be assumed that the form completion time can be taken for Form A reporting elements from Table 7 and 8, as appropriate.

PBT Form A Eligible Respondent Under Section 6.2 it is assumed that the typical reporter will have two waste streams to evaluate. The methodology of the document provides an 80% economy of scale to the evaluation of the second stream. For the purposes of this analysis, the last three steps in this section relate to completing the Form R and can be omitted. It also seems appropriate to halve the management review time, given the simplicity of computations involved. The technical staff calculation time of six minutes per waste stream seems excessive, but will not be questioned. Making these adjustments leaves 83.7 minutes for computation. Add to this the 2 minutes required for Form A completion and the estimate of burden for this source would be 85.7 minutes, or 1.4 hours.

Non PBT Form A Eligible Respondent These respondents could actually have a release as part of the ARA. However, as stated earlier, it seems highly unlikely that they would have a myriad of release points and management/ disposal practices or they would be unlikely to be beneath the threshold. As a first step in evaluating these sources, it was decided to look at the computational burden for each of the releases in Section 5.1 through Section 6.2. The average computation time for these thirteen entries is approximately 70 minutes. Without further information, it is impossible to determine an appropriate weighting factor for a second waste stream. However, it is worthwhile to note that the average value is considerably less than that obtained for PBTs. Given the assumptions of the document, it would be concluded that 70 minutes is an appropriate calculation time. However, if one assumes only a 50% economy of scale for a second waste stream, the calculation time would be 105 minutes. The average of these two values is 1.4 hours as well. Therefore, it was decided to use 1.4 hours as the engineering based estimate for both purposes.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15510-15515]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06152]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; FRL-9923-98-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS39

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal-
and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 19, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed amending certain reporting requirements in the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Steam Generating Units (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS)) rule. This final rule amends the reporting requirements in the
MATS rule by temporarily requiring owners or operators of affected
sources to submit certain required emissions and compliance reports to
the EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System
(ECMPS) Client Tool, and the rule temporarily suspends the requirement
for owners or operators of affected sources to submit certain reports
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publically
available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 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 Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?
II. Does this final rule apply to me?
III. What are the amendments made by this final rule?
IV. Public Comments and Responses
    A. Support for the Proposed Approach
    B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach
    C. Other Comments
    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 (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?

    The EPA is finalizing its proposed rule with revisions, and this
final rule replaces the existing requirements that became effective on
January 5, 2015, pursuant to a direct final rule published on November
19, 2014. See 79 FR 68840 and 79 FR 68795. We also respond to comments
in this final rule. See 79 FR 68796.

II. Does this final rule apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of Regulated
            Category              NAICS Code\1\          Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          221112  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric steam
                                                  generating units.
Federal government \2\.........          221122  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric steam
                                                  generating units owned
                                                  by the federal
                                                  government.
State/local/tribal government            221122  Fossil fuel-fired
 \2\.                                             electric steam
                                                  generating units owned
                                                  by states, tribes or
                                                  municipalities.
                                         921150  Fossil fuel-fired
                                                  electric utility steam
                                                  generating units in
                                                  Indian country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Federal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments
  are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
this final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 63.13.

III. What are the amendments made by this final rule?

    This final rule amends the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
63.10031(f) of the MATS rule at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. The
final MATS rule required affected sources to submit certain MATS
emissions and compliance information electronically, using either the
CEDRI or the ECMPS Client Tool. The EPA developed these two systems
prior to the MATS rule for the electronic submittal of emissions data
from many source categories. CEDRI is currently used by owners or
operators of sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63
to submit performance test reports and other air emissions reports.
ECMPS is used to report emissions data under the Clean Air Act title IV
Acid Rain Program and other programs that are required to continuously
monitor and report emissions according to 40 CFR part 75. These two
systems have enhanced the way source owners and operators report
emissions data to the EPA by providing a streamlined and standardized
electronic approach.
    Subsequent to publication of the MATS rule, stakeholders commented
that we could improve the reporting efficiency of the MATS rule by
requiring

all data to be reported to one system instead of two. Stakeholders also
commented that one system could benefit the EPA and the public in the
review of data submitted by setting one consistent format for all data
reported through MATS. Further, because the vast majority of sources
covered under the MATS rule have been using the ECMPS Client Tool since
2009, the stakeholders have encouraged the EPA to consider
consolidating the electronic reporting under ECMPS.
    We agree that requiring reporting to one system will increase the
efficiency of reporting and facilitate review of reported data. For
these reasons, the agency is beginning the process of consolidating the
submission of electronic reports required under the MATS rule to one
system--the ECMPS Client Tool. This final rule is the first step in the
process. The next step is for the EPA to create a detailed set of
reporting instructions and design, develop, beta-test and implement the
necessary modifications to the ECMPS Client Tool; however, the EPA
cannot complete the second step prior to April 16, 2015, the compliance
deadline for the MATS rule. Therefore, we are implementing a phased
approach to completing the change in the electronic reporting
requirements.
    This final rulemaking completes the first step in the agency's plan
by removing the requirement to submit MATS compliance reports to CEDRI
and requiring source owners or operators to use the ECMPS Client Tool
to submit Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of the reports that
the current MATS rule requires to be submitted using CEDRI. As stated
above, this interim step is necessary because the ECMPS Client Tool is
not currently programmed to accept the reports that the MATS rule
required sources to submit to CEDRI. The specific reports that must be
submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack
test reports; 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day mercury (Hg) Low
Emitting EGU (Electric Generating Unit) (LEE) test reports; Relative
Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) reports for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen
chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and Hg monitors; Relative Calibration
Audit (RCA) and Relative Response Audit (RRA) reports for particulate
matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS); 30-boiler
operating day rolling average reports for PM CEMS, PM continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS), and approved hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) metals CEMS; and semiannual compliance reports.
Reports for the performance stack tests, Hg LEE tests, RATAs, RRAs and
RCAs typically include a description of the source, the test date(s), a
list of attendees, a test protocol, a summary of results, raw field
data, and example calculations, and, depending on the method(s) used,
may also include the results of sample analyses, quality-assurance
information (e.g., leak, bias and drift checks), and instrument
calibrations and calibration gas certificates. This final rule does not
alter the due dates for any report submittals contained in the final
MATS rule. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU.
    The EPA recognized that submitting electronic PDF reports is not as
desirable as reporting the data in extensible markup language (XML)
format, because the information in a PDF report cannot easily be
extracted and put in a database format. In view of this, we plan to
promulgate an additional data reporting revision to the MATS rule in
the second part of our phased approach. In this second part, we plan to
develop another rulemaking that requires affected source owners or
operators to submit the data elements required in the rule in a
structured XML format using the ECMPS Client Tool, which is already in
use. The second part of our phased approach will complete the process
of conversion of the electronic reporting of data using the ECMPS
Client Tool, and the MATS rule will be revised to specify all of the
required XML data elements for each type of report. We also plan to
develop a detailed set of reporting instructions for each report and to
modify ECMPS accordingly, in order to be able to receive and process
the data submitted.
    In the event we are unable to finalize the rulemaking for the
second part of our phased approach for electronic reporting conversion
by April 16, 2017, the reporting requirements established in this final
rule will revert automatically to the original requirements set forth
in the final MATS rulemaking published on February 16, 2012 (77 FR
9303). This trigger is necessary to ensure that the data submitted in
the future is consistent with the database accessibility that is
associated with information reported in structured XML formats even if
the second rulemaking cannot be finalized. Accordingly, this rulemaking
includes a date of April 16, 2017, to complete the second part of our
phased approach for electronic reporting conversion to the ECMPS Client
Tool. The EPA intends to revoke this requirement once the final
conversion to the ECMPS Client Tool is complete.

IV. Public Comments and Responses

    The direct final and parallel proposed rules received comments from
nine persons--two members of the public, one state government
representative, four EGU owners or operators and two EGU industry
representatives.

A. Support for the Proposed Approach

    Most commenters expressed support for the planned two phased
approach for merging the electronic reporting systems, as well as the
revisions to allow temporary submission of MATS rule emissions and
compliance reports through the ECMPS Client Tool and suspension of
mandatory submission of certain reports using the CEDRI. Commenters
recognized the benefits afforded by the proposed approach, noting that
through the use of the transition period, the agency will be able to
obtain the necessary information to assure compliance while
simultaneously developing final reporting formats and infrastructure
for XML reporting. Commenters agree that consolidating all reporting
requirements through one system will streamline and simplify
requirements, making reporting more efficient and user-friendly,
improve the quality of reported emissions data and enable the agency to
track compliance effectively. We reviewed and considered these comments
and are finalizing the proposed rule, with minor revisions, to
implement the first part of our phased approach to merge all MATS rule
electronic reporting into the ECMPS Client Tool.

B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach

    One commenter, a state government representative, opposed the
provisions of the proposed rule on two grounds: (1) The commenter
alleges the rule did not contain a requirement for EGU owners or
operators to submit full stack test reports; and (2) the commenter
indicates that it is improper to include a temporary suspension of the
requirement to use the electronic reporting tool (ERT) in preparing and
submitting stack test reports electronically.
    With regard to the first item, the EPA maintains that the proposed
rule did include a requirement to submit complete performance test
reports during the interim period. In the proposed rule, the EPA stated
that stack test reports were required to be submitted during the
transition period: ``. . . (t)he specific reports that must be
submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack
test reports . . .'' and ``. . . (r)eports for

the performance stack tests . . . typically include a description of
the source, the test date(s), a list of attendees, a test protocol, a
summary of results, raw field data, and example calculations, and,
depending on the method(s) used, may also include the results of sample
analyses, quality-assurance information (e.g., bias and drift checks),
instrument calibrations, and calibration gas certificates . . .'' (79
FR 68797). Other commenters agreed with the EPA's view of the
requirements while some believed that the requirement to submit the
test reports was only triggered upon request by the permitting
authority. To address any ambiguity on this issue, we are revising the
proposed rule and expressly requiring submission of emissions test
reports in the final rule.
    With regard to the second item, we agree with the state
representative who commented that ``. . . (s)ubmittal of stack test
reports using ERT will allow (regulatory agencies) to independently
verify emissions calculations without having to re-enter data into
separate spreadsheets for re-calculation. ERT does the calculations and
can include all raw field and laboratory data as attachments . . . .''
These are among the reasons we mandated use of the ERT in both the
Information Collection Request and the MATS rule. Moreover, we agree
with the state representative that the ``. . . ERT can generate a full
PDF report that could be submitted to ECMPS with minimal effort . . .
.'' Indeed, we maintain that using the ``one-touch'' ERT feature to
create PDF versions of ERT-developed reports is the easiest way to meet
the interim electronic reporting requirements. However, at the present
time, the ERT does not support every MATS rule-related test method,
quality assurance approach or performance specification (PS), e.g., RCA
or RRA for PM CEMS and PS-11 for PM CEMS. Moreover, despite the
efficiency and ease of using the ``one-touch'' capability of the ERT
for the majority of MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance
approaches or PS, the ERT is not the sole means of developing PDF
versions of required reports. We considered requiring EGU owners or
operators to use the ERT's PDF creation feature for those reports that
can be developed through the current version of the ERT, but decided
against it for concerns that mandated use of two separate systems
during the interim period could be inefficient. While we believe many
EGU owners or operators will choose to use the ERT's cost-effective PDF
creation approach when possible, the rule does not require its use.

C. Other Comments

    Even though comments on the proposed rule were to be limited to
issues directly associated with the electronic reporting changes
covered in 40 CFR 63.10031, commenters provided other comments. One
industry representative sought assurance that under the interim rule,
EGU owners or operators could use self-generated forms that included
relevant information per the aforementioned preamble language (79 CFR
68797), going on to assert that the only formatting specification is
that the reports be submitted in PDF format. The industry
representative expressed support for the proposed rule if those
assertions were correct. Commenters are correct, provided the necessary
information is included in a reasonable manner to allow review in the
electronic PDF versions of the reports.
    Industry commenters also opposed the proposed rule to the extent it
required EGU owners or operators to use the ERT or CEDRI forms to
create the reports that will be submitted in PDF format, believing that
the rule revision would not provide any relief if their understanding
were correct. While we disagree with the commenters' views that using
the ERT or CEDRI to create PDF versions of reports or forms would not
provide relief, the rule neither requires nor prohibits during the
interim period preparation or submission of PDF reports or forms using
the ERT or CEDRI. We also note that the current versions of the ERT or
CEDRI do support notice of compliance (NOC) status reporting and the
majority of MATS rule-related test methods, quality assurance
approaches and PS, including all associated requisite calculations and
validations. For this reason, the commenters' concerns are misplaced.
    Industry commenters also commented that some in the regulated
community might be confused over the reporting requirements and
misinterpret the provisions such that only PDF versions of ERT or CEDRI
generated reports or forms would be allowed for submission during the
interim period. Both commenters suggested we provide guidance, or, if
necessary, additional rule language after the first sentence of 40 CFR
63.10031(f)(6), to clarify the role of the ERT and CEDRI for data
submittal during the interim reporting phase. We considered these
comments and decided that such guidance or rule language is
unnecessary, as the ERT is not required to be used during the interim
period. With regard to reporting requirements during the transition
period, as mentioned earlier, the use of the CEDRI to submit reports to
our WebFIRE database will be suspended, the information that would have
been reported through the CEDRI must be submitted to the ECMPS in PDF
format and the deadline for submitting reports remains unchanged. We
will make the necessary adjustments to the ECMPS to enable the PDF
reports to be submitted. Note that submission of a PDF version of a
test report during this interim period is sufficient, provided that the
test report contains sufficient information to assess compliance and to
determine whether the testing has been done properly.
    One commenter expressed concern with using the ERT and CEDRI in the
interim period because, in his view, those platforms are not capable of
accepting certain MATS reports, such as NOC status reports and 30-
boiler operating day averages from PM CEMS. Moreover, the commenter
believes using the ERT would be inefficient because, in his view, it
was not designed to handle MATS rule data, such as those from PS-11,
RCAs and RRAs. Finally, the commenter believes the usefulness of ERT
collected data is limited because, in his view, the ERT neither
performs the requisite calculations for quality assurance tests nor
validates test results in accordance with method acceptance criteria.
As stated above, the rule neither requires nor prohibits during the
interim period preparation or submission of PDF reports or forms using
the ERT or CEDRI. We also note that the current versions of the ERT or
CEDRI do support NOC status reporting and the majority of MATS rule
related test methods, quality assurance approaches and PS, including
all associated requisite calculations and validations. While not a part
of this rulemaking, we soon expect the ERT will be able to handle all
of the remaining MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance
approaches and PS, which will be important if the agency does not
complete the revisions to the ECMPS. In addition, we expect the ECMPS
Client Tool to be revised to accept all MATS rule related electronic
reporting during the second part of our phased approach such that the
ECMPS will be the sole means for providing MATS reports electronically.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0567. The agency believes this action does not
impose an information collection burden because it does not change the
information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
amendment does not create any new requirements or burdens, and no costs
are associated with this amendment. See 79 FR 68795 at 68798 (November
19, 2014).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The final amendments impose no requirements on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. The final
amendments are either clarifications or alternate, temporary reporting
instructions which will neither increase nor decrease environmental
protection.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart UUUUU-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units

0
2. Section 63.10031 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence in each of the following paragraphs: (f)
introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.10031  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (f) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, you must submit the performance test
reports required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is
accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). *
* *
    (1) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of
completing each CEMS (SO2, PM, HCl, HF, and Hg) performance
evaluation test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and required by this subpart,
you must submit the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data (or, for
PM CEMS, RCA and RRA data) required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE
database by using CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX
(www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
    (2) On or after April 16, 2017, for a PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved
alternative monitoring using a HAP metals CEMS, within 60 days after
the reporting periods ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th,
and December 31st, you must submit quarterly reports to EPA's WebFIRE
database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX
(www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
* * * * *
    (4) On or after April 16, 2017, submit the compliance reports
required under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and the
notification of compliance status required under Sec.  63.10030(e) to
EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through
EPA's CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
    (5) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements

in paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) of this
section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address
listed in Sec.  63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the
owner or operator of an EGU, these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require
submittal of reports subject to paragraphs (f) introductory text and
(f)(1) through (4) of this section in paper format.
    (6) Prior to April 16, 2017, all reports subject to electronic
submittal in paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4)
shall be submitted to the EPA at the frequency specified in those
paragraphs in electronic portable document format (PDF) using the ECMPS
Client Tool. Each PDF version of a submitted report must include
sufficient information to assess compliance and to demonstrate that the
testing was done properly. The following data elements must be entered
into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time of submission of each PDF file:
    (i) The facility name, physical address, mailing address (if
different from the physical address), and county;
    (ii) The ORIS code (or equivalent ID number assigned by EPA's Clean
Air Markets Division (CAMD)) and the Facility Registry System (FRS) ID;
    (iii) The EGU (or EGUs) to which the report applies. Report the EGU
IDs as they appear in the CAMD Business System;
    (iv) If any of the EGUs in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section
share a common stack, indicate which EGUs share the stack. If emissions
data are monitored and reported at the common stack according to part
75 of this chapter, report the ID number of the common stack as it is
represented in the electronic monitoring plan required under Sec.
75.53 of this chapter;
    (v) If any of the EGUs described in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this
section are in an averaging plan under Sec.  63.10009, indicate which
EGUs are in the plan and whether it is a 30- or 90-day averaging plan;
    (vi) The identification of each emission point to which the report
applies. An ``emission point'' is a point at which source effluent is
released to the atmosphere, and is either a dedicated stack that serves
one of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section or
a common stack that serves two or more of those EGUs. To identify an
emission point, associate it with the EGU or stack ID in the CAMD
Business system or the electronic monitoring plan (e.g., ``Unit 2
stack,'' ``common stack CS001,'' or ``multiple stack MS001'');
    (vii) The rule citation (e.g., Sec.  63.10031(f)(1), Sec.
63.10031(f)(2), etc.) for which the report is showing compliance;
    (viii) The pollutant(s) being addressed in the report;
    (ix) The reporting period being covered by the report (if
applicable);
    (x) The relevant test method that was performed for a performance
test (if applicable);
    (xi) The date the performance test was conducted (if applicable);
and
    (xii) The responsible official's name, title, and phone number.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-06152 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30912]
[DOCID:fr31my06-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-121-000, et al.]

American Electric Power Service Corporation, et al.; Electric
Rate and Corporate Filings

May 24, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. American Electric Power Service Corporation

[Docket No. EC06-121-000]

    Take notice that on May 19, 2006, American Electric Power Service
Corporation (AEP) on behalf of AEP Texas North Company (TNC) and AEP
Texas North Generation Company, LLC (TNGC) filed an application
pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act seeking an order
approving a transaction whereby TNC will transfer the ownership of
seven mothballed/retired generation facilities to TNGC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of TNC. AEP states that this transaction will enable AEP to
comply with the Texas unbundling statutes.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 9, 2006.

2. Interstate Power & Light Company

[Docket No. ER06-587-002]

    Take notice that on April 27, 2006, IES Utilities, Inc. FERC
Schedule No. RES-4 and the Interstate Power Company, FERC Schedule No.
499 tariff sheets are cancelled April 1, 2006 and July 1, 2006
respectively.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2006.

3. Intermountain Industries, Inc.

[Docket No. PH06-65-000]

    Take notice that on May 17, 2006, Intermountain Industries, Inc.
filed a notice of petition for waiver of the Commission's regulations
under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 7, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8343 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P