From:
Smith, Patrick<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, August 05, 2016 2:58 PM
To:
ones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Russ Dudek<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sellers, Daniel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
MSC ICR Submittal Group 1 - Semiannual & Quarterly Subpart CCCCC Reports

Attached Semiannual and Quarterly 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCC Reports for 2014 and 2015.

Patrick J. Smith
Environmental Manager
Mountain State Carbon LLC
1851 Main Street
Follansbee, WV  26037

Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< 2.3.18 Report 2014 Qtr1.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2014 Qtr2 Semi1.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2014 Qtr3.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2014 Qtr4 Semi2.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2015 Qtr1.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2015 Qtr2 Semi1.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2015 Qtr3.pdf >>
<< 2.3.18 Report 2015 Qtr4 Semi2.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65382-65385]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27219]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0558; FRL-9482-1]
RIN 2060-AP17

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Alternative Test Method
for Olefins in Gasoline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a rule
to allow refiners and laboratories to use an alternative test method
for olefin content in gasoline. This final rule will provide
flexibility to the regulated community by allowing an additional test
method for compliance measurement while maintaining environmental
benefits achieved from our fuels programs.

DATES: This rule is effective November 21, 2011 without further notice.
The incorporation by reference listed in this rule was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of November 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0558. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA
Headquarters Library, Mail Code: 2822T, EPA West Building, 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 holidays.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the facsimile number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Sopata, Chemist, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (6406J), Washington, DC
20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
II. Rule Change
    A. Alternative Test Method for Olefins in Gasoline
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13123: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice and Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
final action include those involved with the production, importation,
distribution, sale and storage of gasoline motor fuel.
    The table below is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that
EPA is now aware could be potentially regulated by this proposed
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether an entity is regulated by this proposed
action, one should carefully examine the existing regulations in 40 CFR
part 80. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                    NAICSs codes \a\    SIC codes \b\                  Examples of potentially regulated parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................             324110               2911  Petroleum refiners.
Industry...................................              54138               8734  Testing Laboratories.
Industry...................................     422710, 422720         5171, 5172  Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

II. Rule Change

A. Alternative Test Method for Olefins in Gasoline

    Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline are
required to test Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), and conventional gasoline
(CG) for several fuel parameters including olefins. The test method for
determining olefin content is specified at 40 CFR 80.46(b).
    On January 31, 2011, EPA proposed to allow ASTM D6550-05 (SFC) as
an alternative to the designated test method, ASTM D1319-03 e\1\ (FIA),
for measuring olefin content of gasoline, provided the results are
correlated to ASTM D1319-03 e\1\ using a site-specific correlation of
FIA (volume percent) versus SFC (weight percent). The Agency also
proposed that correlation be completed on a site-specific basis.\1\ As
discussed in the proposal, the gasoline fuel set used to develop the
correlation should span the range of olefin properties representative
of that refinery's or importer's gasoline production. We also explained
this gasoline fuel set would be analyzed by the test facility's
laboratory using both ASTM D1319-03 e\1\ (also known as FIA, or the
designated test method) and ASTM D6550-05. A resulting correlation
equation would then be developed in terms of ASTM D1319-03 e\1\ in
volume percent and ASTM D6550-05 in weight percent. Thus, the
applicable range of the resulting correlation from a facility's site
specific correlation would be consistent with that specific facility's
olefin content range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 76 FR 5319, January 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this proposed rule, EPA received five comments from
the American Petroleum Institute (API), BP America Incorporated (BP),
the National Petroleum and Refiners Association (NPRA), Western States
Petroleum Association (WSPA), and Shell Oil Products U.S. (SOPUS). All
comments were in support of the proposal. API, NPRA, SOPUS and WSPA
also provided additional comments. These additional comments have been
summarized and our responses to them are in the Response to Comments
Document that has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket
ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0558).
    The EPA is finalizing a rule to allow ASTM D6550-05, as an
alternative test method to measure the olefin content of gasoline,
provided its test results are correlated to ASTM D1319-03 e\1\ on a
site specific basis.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not impose any new information collection
burden. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., has
approved the information collection requirements contained in the final
RFG and anti-dumping rulemaking and has assigned OMB control number
2060-0277. 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.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus an Agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This final rule does not impose a regulatory burden on anyone,
including small businesses. Instead, this final rule will have a
positive impact by the allowance of ASTM D 6550-05 which will provide
additional flexibility to the regulated community, including small
businesses, in meeting olefins in gasoline testing requirements. We
have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve
regulatory burden for all effected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory rules with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The allowance of ASTM D 6550-05 will provide additional flexibility to
the regulated community in meeting olefins in gasoline testing
requirements. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action 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

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The allowance of ASTM D 6550-05
will provide additional flexibility to the regulated community in
meeting olefins in gasoline testing requirements. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this final rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This action
applies to gasoline refiners, blenders and importers that supply
gasoline. The allowance of ASTM D6500-05 will provide additional
flexibility to the regulated community in meeting olefins in gasoline
testing requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern 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 does 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 action is not subject to Executive Order 13211(66 FR 18355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 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. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    This final rule involves a technical standard. EPA is adopting an
ASTM standard as described in Unit II.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. The technical standard included
in today's rule is a standard developed by ASTM, a voluntary consensus
standards body, and thus raises no issues under the NTTAA. The ASTM
standard in today's action may be obtained from ASTM International at
100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
610-832-9585 (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail);
or through the ASTM Web site (http://www.astm.org).

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 final rule will not have
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 allowance of ASTM D6500-05 will provide additional
flexibility to the regulated community in meeting olefins in gasoline
testing requirements. This final rule amendment does not relax control
measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause
emission increases from these sources.

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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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). This rule will be effective November 21, 2011.

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for today's final rule comes from sections
211(c) and 211(k) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k)). Section
211(c) allows EPA to regulate fuels that contribute to air pollution
which endangers public health or welfare, or which impairs emission
control equipment. Section 211(k) prescribes requirements for RFG and
CG and requires EPA to promulgate regulations establishing these
requirements. Additional support for the fuels controls in today's
final rule comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Diesel, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 13, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to reads as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(l), 7545 and 7601(a).

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
2. Section 80.46 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(2) and (h)(1)(iii)
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.46  Measurement of reformulated gasoline fuel parameters.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) Any refiner or importer may determine olefin content using
ASTM standard method ASTM D6550 (incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeting any testing
requirement involving olefin content; provided that
    (ii) The refiner or importer test result is correlated with the
method specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section on a site-specific
basis, in order to achieve an unbiased prediction of the result in
volume percent, for the method specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) ASTM standard method D6550-05 (``ASTM D6550''), Standard Test
Method for Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by
Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography, approved November 1, 2005.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-27219 Filed 10-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7148-7149]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3160]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9629-8]

Notice of Approval of Clean Air Act Outer Continental Shelf
Permits Issued to Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., and Shell Offshore, Inc.
for the Discoverer Drillship

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of Final Action.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA Region 10 has issued two final
permit decisions granting Clean Air Act Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
permit applications, one from Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., for operation
of the Discoverer drillship in the Chukchi Sea and one from Shell
Offshore, Inc. (collectively, ``Shell''), for operation of the
Discoverer drillship in the Beaufort Sea.

DATES: EPA Region 10 issued final permit decisions on the OCS permits
for Shell's operation of the Discoverer drillship in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas on January 27, 2012. The permits also became effective on
that date. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of these final permit decisions, to
the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
within 60 days of February 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to the above-referenced permits are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, AWT-107, Seattle, WA 98101. To arrange
for viewing of these documents, call Natasha Greaves at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natasha Greaves, Office of Air Waste
and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 900, AWT-107, Seattle, WA 98101. Anyone who wishes to
review the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) decision described
below can obtain it at http://www.epa.gov/eab/ eab/.
    Notice of Final Action and Supplementary Information: EPA Region 10
issued two final permit decisions to Shell authorizing operation of the
Discoverer drillship in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, OCS Permit Nos.
R10OCS/PSD-AK-09-01 and R10OCS/PSD-AK-2010-01 (collectively, the
``Shell Discoverer permits''). The Shell Discoverer permits were
initially issued by EPA Region 10 on September 19, 2011. The EPA's
Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) received four petitions for review of
the Shell Discoverer permits from the following entities: (1) The
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS); \1\ (2) The Native
Village of Point Hope, Resisting Environmental Destruction of
Indigenous Lands, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological
Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska
Environmental Center, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Pacific Environment,
Sierra Club, and the

Wilderness Society; (3) Mr. Daniel Lum; and (4) Ms. Donna Arvelo. On
January 12, 2012, the EAB dismissed Ms. Arvelo's petition as untimely
and denied review of the three other petitions. See In re Shell Gulf of
Mexico, Inc. and Shell Offshore, Inc., OCS Appeal Nos. 11-02, 11-03,
11-04 & 11-08 (EAB, Jan. 12, 2011) (Order Denying Review). Following
the EAB's action, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), EPA Region 10 issued
final permit decisions on January 27, 2011. All conditions of the Shell
Discoverer permits, as initially issued by Region 10 on September 19,
2011, are final and effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission initially joined in the
ICAS petition, but later requested to withdraw from the appeal
proceeding. The EAB granted its request.

    Dated: January 31, 2012.
Richard G. Albright,
Director, Region 10 Office of Air, Waste & Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2012-3160 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39296-39300]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67264; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To
Provide for Additional Co-Location Services and Establish Related Fees

June 26, 2012.
    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 June 13, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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 proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to provide for
additional co-location services and establish related fees. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to provide for
additional co-location services and establish related fees.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63275 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-100). (the
``Original Co-location Notice''). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 65971; (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79267 (December 21,
2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-75). The Exchange operates a data center in
Mahwah, New Jersey (``data center'') from which it provides co-
location services to Users. The Exchange's co-location services
allow Users to rent space in the data center in order that they may
locate their electronic servers in close physical proximity to the
Exchange's trading and execution system. See Original Co-location
Notice at 70049. For purposes of its co-location services, the term
``User'' includes (i) OTP Holders, OTP Firms and Sponsored
Participants that are authorized to obtain access to the NYSE Arca
System pursuant to Rule 6.2A (see Rule 6.1A(a)(19)) and (ii) non-OTP
Holder and non-OTP Firm broker-dealers and vendors that request to
receive co-location services directly from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cabinet Cross Connects
    A User that has more than one cabinet within the data center is
currently able to purchase one or more fiber cross connects between its
cabinets. Currently, a $500 initial fee and a $500 monthly fee are
charged per cross connect. The Exchange proposes that each User be
permitted to purchase cross connects between its own cabinets, as is
currently permitted, as well as between its cabinet(s) and the cabinets
of separate Users within the data center.\5\ A cross connect would be
used to connect cabinets of separate Users when, for example, a User
receives technical support, order routing and/or market data delivery
services from another User in the data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that fees for a cross connect would be
the same, regardless of whether the cross connect is between the
cabinets of a single User or between the cabinets of separate Users
within the data center. The Exchange further notes that only the
User requesting the cross connect would be charged the related
initial and monthly fees; the other User would simply be required to
give permission for the cross connection. This proposed change would
require that the existing cross connect fee in the Fee Schedule be
amended to reflect that it is no longer applicable only to cross
connects between a single User's cabinets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cross connects may be bundled (i.e., multiple cross connects within
a single sheath) such that a single sheath can hold either one cross
connect or several cross connects in multiples of six (e.g., six or 12
cross connects). The Exchange is proposing fees for bundled cross

connects \6\ that correspond to the number of cross connects in the
bundle, as follows: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All multiple cross connects within the bundle would be
installed at once and only in multiples of six, regardless of the
number of cross connects the User utilizes. This proposed change
would require that the existing cross connect fee in the Fee
Schedule be amended to reflect that it is applicable only for a
single cross connect (i.e., not for bundled cross connects). A User
could still elect to purchase individual cross connects, but once
the User anticipates utilizing four cross connects, it would be more
economical to purchase a bundle of six (with two unused) for a $500
initial charge plus a $1,500 monthly charge, which would be less
than the $500 initial charge and $2,000 monthly charge for
purchasing four cross connects individually. The additional unused
cross connects in the bundle would not result in any additional
internal costs or Exchange fees for the User.
    \7\ The Exchange has made bundled cross connects available for a
User to connect its cabinets within the data center beginning with
the availability of co-location services in the data center in
September 2010. In certain circumstances, the Exchange charged
certain Users that purchased bundled cross connects a monthly per
cross connect fee that was equal to the monthly fees proposed herein
and therefore less than the $500 fee per cross connect that is
currently reflected within the Fee Schedule. The Exchange has
granted credits to the other Users that purchased bundled cross
connects such that all Users have been charged the monthly fees
proposed herein.

6 Cross Connects.......................  $500 initial charge plus $1,500
                                          monthly charge.
12 Cross Connects......................  $500 initial charge plus $2,500
                                          monthly charge.
18 Cross Connects......................  $500 initial charge plus $3,200
                                          monthly charge.
24 Cross Connects......................  $500 initial charge plus $3,900
                                          monthly charge.

    The Exchange's initial cost for installing bundled cross connects
is generally consistent with the cost of installing a single cross
connect. The Exchange therefore proposes that the same $500 initial fee
apply to install bundled cross connects as is currently applicable to a
single cross connect. However, the Exchange's cost for ongoing
maintenance of cross connects decreases on a per cross connect basis as
the number of cross connects within a sheath increases. Accordingly,
the monthly fees proposed for bundled cross connects would likewise
decrease on a per cross connect basis as the number of cross connects
within a sheath increases, as reflected in the amended Fee Schedule.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, a single cross connect currently has a
corresponding monthly fee of $500. However, as proposed, a bundle of
6 cross connects would have a monthly fee of $1,500 ($250 monthly
fee per cross connect), a bundle of 12 cross connects would have a
monthly fee of $2,500 ($208 monthly fee per cross connect), a bundle
of 18 cross connects would have a monthly fee of $3,200 ($178
monthly fee per cross connect), and a bundle of 24 cross connects
would have a monthly fee of $3,900 ($162 monthly fee per cross
connect). Because the cross connects are bundled, the proposed
change would not apply to incremental cross connects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 Gb LCN Connections
    Users are currently able to purchase access to the Exchange's
Liquidity Center Network (``LCN''), a local area network that is
available in the data center. LCN access is available in either one or
10 gigabit (``Gb'') capacities, for which Users incur an initial and
monthly fee per connection. The Exchange proposes that a User that
purchases five 10 Gb LCN connections would only be charged the initial
fee for a sixth 10 Gb LCN connection and would not be charged the
monthly fee that would otherwise be applicable.\9\ This would apply to
a User that purchases six 10 Gb LCN connections at one time as well as
to a User that purchases six 10 Gb LCN connections at separate
times.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Beginning with the availability of co-location services in
the data center in September 2010, the Exchange charged certain
Users that purchased a sixth LCN connection as proposed herein,
i.e., the Exchange charged the initial fee but not the monthly fee.
The Exchange has granted credits to those other Users that purchased
a sixth LCN connection and were charged the monthly fee for such
connection.
    \10\ A User would be charged an initial and monthly fee
according to the Fee Schedule for any additional 10 Gb LCN
connections it purchases (e.g., a seventh or eighth 10 Gb LCN
connection). Additionally, a User that cancels a 10 Gb LCN
connection, such that the User is no longer paying for at least five
10 Gb LCN connections, would thereafter be charged the monthly fee
for what had been its free sixth 10 Gb LCN connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LCN CSP Connections
    A User is currently able to act as a content service provider (a
``CSP'' User) and deliver services to another User in the data center
(a ``Subscribing'' User). These services could include, for example,
order routing/brokerage services and/or market data delivery services.
Many of these services can be provided via direct cross connect between
the User providing a service and the User receiving it. However, using
direct cross connects would require the User providing the service to
have a direct cross connect with each User receiving it and would
require the User providing the service to send the same data multiple
times, i.e., once per receiving User.
    LCN CSP connections address this issue by allowing the CSP User to
send data to, and communicate with, all the properly authorized
Subscribing Users at once, via a specific, dedicated LCN connection (an
``LCN CSP'' connection); \11\ the Subscribing User must also have an
LCN connection in order to communicate with the LCN CSP.\12\ The LCN
CSP connection used by the CSP User may only be used for providing
services to, and communicating with, Subscribing Users and is separate
and distinct from any LCN connection used by the CSP User to access the
Exchange.\13\ Conversely, the Subscribing User receives the services
via its standard LCN connection \14\ and is charged an initial and
monthly fee that reflects the benefit of receiving services from the
CSP User in the data center in this manner. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes the following fees for LCN CSP connections and Subscribing
Users: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A single LCN CSP connection may be used to provide services
to more than one Subscribing User. A CSP User's LCN CSP connection
may be used to receive data or communications from a Subscribing
User.
    \12\ The Subscribing User's LCN connection is the standard LCN
connection that is described in the preceding section.
    \13\ Thus, in order to access the Exchange, the CSP User is
required to maintain an existing standard LCN connection. As above,
the current fees in the Fee Schedule are applicable to such
connection, e.g., a $10,000 initial fee and $12,000 monthly fee for
a 10 Gb LCN connection.
    \14\ The current fees in the Fee Schedule are applicable, e.g.,
a $10,000 initial fee and $12,000 monthly fee for a 10 Gb LCN
connection. If the Subscribing User does not have an existing LCN
connection, it is required to purchase one in order to receive
services from a CSP User over the LCN.
    \15\ The Exchange has made LCN CSP connections available to
Users beginning with the availability of co-location services in the
data center in September 2010. During this time, three Users have
purchased LCN CSP connections and have been charged the related LCN
CSP fee proposed herein. Also, one User has become a Subscribing
User and has been charged the CSP subscriber fee proposed herein.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCN CSP Access................  1 Gb Circuit.....  $6,000 per connection
                                                    initial charge plus
                                                    $500 monthly per
                                                    connection.
LCN CSP Access................  10 Gb Circuit....  $10,000 per
                                                    connection initial
                                                    charge plus $5,000
                                                    monthly per
                                                    connection.
CSP Subscriber................  .................  $950 per LCN CSP
                                                    initial charge plus
                                                    $300 monthly per LCN
                                                    CSP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed initial fee for an LCN CSP
connection is the same as the existing fee for a standard LCN
connection, both for the 1 Gb and 10 Gb capacities. This is because an
LCN CSP connection is physically the same as a standard LCN connection.
However, the proposed monthly fee for an LCN CSP connection is less
than the existing monthly fee for a standard LCN connection, both for
the 1 Gb and 10 Gb capacities. This is because an LCN CSP connection is
functionally limited as compared to a standard LCN connection--as noted
above, an LCN CSP connection may only be used for providing services to
Subscribing Users and may not be used for accessing the Exchange or for
other purposes.
Cages
    A User is currently able to purchase a cage to house its cabinets
within the data center.\16\ A cage would typically be purchased by a
User that has several cabinets within the data center and that wishes
to enhance privacy around its cabinets, e.g., so that other Users
cannot see what type of hardware is being utilized. The Exchange
charges fees for cages based on the size of the cage, which directly
corresponds to the number of cabinets housed therein. The Exchange is
proposing the following fees for cages:\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange has made cages available to Users beginning
with the availability of co-location services in the data center in
September 2010.
    \17\ The Exchange currently charges cage fees to Users at the
levels proposed herein.

1-14 Cabinets..........................  $5,000 initial charge plus
                                          $2,700 monthly charge.
15-28 Cabinets.........................  $10,000 initial charge plus
                                          $4,100 monthly charge.
29+ Cabinets...........................  $15,000 initial charge plus
                                          $5,500 monthly charge.

    The Exchange's initial cost to construct a cage is directly related
to the size of the cage, which is determined by the number of the
User's cabinets that are to be housed therein. The initial fees
proposed for a cage would accordingly increase on a proportional basis
as the number of cabinets housed in the cage increases, as reflected in
the amended Fee Schedule.\18\ The monthly fee would reflect the
opportunity cost to the Exchange of giving up floor space in the data
center for the cage's physical footprint and the value of such space to
the User; such floor space otherwise could be utilized for additional
cabinets for the same or other Users or other Exchange purposes.
Accordingly, the monthly fees proposed for a cage would increase on a
marginal basis as the number of cabinets housed in the cage increases,
as reflected in the amended Fee Schedule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, a cage housing between one and 14 cabinets
would have a corresponding initial fee of $5,000. However, a cage
housing between 15 and 28 cabinets--as many as twice the number of
cabinets--would have a corresponding initial fee of $10,000.
Similarly, a cage housing 29 or more cabinets--possibly as many as
three times the number of cabinets as the lowest tier--would have a
corresponding initial fee of $15,000.
    \19\ For example, a cage housing between one and 14 cabinets
would have a corresponding monthly fee of $2,700 ($193 per cabinet
when housing 14 cabinets). However, a cage housing between 15 and 28
cabinets--as many as twice the number of cabinets--would have a
corresponding monthly fee of $4,100 (an additional monthly cost that
is slightly greater than 150% of the lowest tier and $146 per
cabinet when housing 28 cabinets). Similarly, a cage housing 29 or
more cabinets--which could be as many as three times the number of
cabinets as the lowest tier--would have a corresponding monthly fee
of $5,500 (an additional monthly cost that is slightly greater than
200% of the lowest tier and $131 per cabinet when housing, for
example, 42 cabinets). As the cage size increases, its physical
footprint on the data center floor correspondingly increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change Fee
    A User is currently able to arrange for the Exchange to
reconfigure, modify, or otherwise change a co-location service that the
Exchange has already established and completed for the User. In this
regard, the Exchange notes that the Fee Schedule includes several co-
location services for which an initial fee is applicable in addition to
an ongoing monthly fee.\20\ These initial fees are related to the
Exchange's initial cost of establishing or installing the particular
co-location service for the User. The Exchange proposes to charge a
User a fee of $950 per order if the User requests a change to one or
more existing co-location services that the Exchange has already
established or completed for the User (``Change Fee'').\21\ For
example, the initial installation of an LCN connection would include
establishing and configuring market data services requested by the
User, which would be covered by the initial install fee. However, if a
User requests that the Exchange establish and configure additional
market data services for its LCN connection, the User would be charged
a one-time Change Fee of $950 for that request. If a User orders two or
more services at one time (for example, through submitting an order
form requesting multiple services) the User would be charged a one-time
Change Fee of $950, which would cover the multiple services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, the initial 1 Gb LCN Access fee is $6,000 per
connection and the ongoing monthly fee is $5,000.
    \21\ The Exchange has uniformly charged this $950 Change Fee to
Users beginning with the availability of co-location services at the
data center in September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expedite Fee
    A User is currently able to request that the Exchange expedite the
completion of co-location services purchased or ordered by the User.
The Exchange proposes to charge Users $4,000 for expedited completion
of co-location services (``Expedite Fee'').\22\ At the time that
services are ordered, the Exchange informs the User of the expected
completion date; if a User wishes to obtain the services on an
expedited basis, the Exchange would inform the User of the earlier
completion date that could be expected with payment of the Expedite
Fee. The time saved would vary depending on the type(s) of service(s)
being ordered, but the Expedite Fee would always be a flat $4,000,
allowing the User to determine if the expected time savings warrants
payment of the fee. The Expedite Fee relates to the Exchange's cost of
expediting the services. For example, the expedited service may require
that work be completed on the weekend or after normal business hours,
thereby resulting in the Exchange providing overtime compensation to
data center staff.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange has made the option of expedited services
available to Users beginning with the availability of co-location
services in the data center in September 2010. Three Users have
requested expedited services and have been charged the $4,000
Expedite Fee, beginning in April 2011.
    \23\ Offering expedited services would not have any impact on
the normal delivery time for all other pending co-location work
orders. In other words, Users that do not elect to pay the Expedite
Fee would not be disadvantaged by those who do. The Exchange does
not guarantee that any work is completed by a specific date under
either normal or expedited delivery time, but rather does all work
on a best efforts basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Power Not Utilized Fee
    A User is currently able to obtain space in the data center for
future use of currently available, unused cabinet space in proximity to
the User's existing cabinet space--i.e., space that the User does not
anticipate using until some point in the future and therefore is
reserved but not currently utilized. The applicable fee for this space
in which power is not utilized (``PNU Fee'') was described within the
Original Co-location Notice.\24\ Such description provided that the PNU
Fee would be 40% of the applicable monthly per kilowatt (``kW'') fee.
The Exchange now

proposes to provide for the PNU Fee within the Fee Schedule as $360 per
month, which is 40% of the lowest per kW monthly cabinet fee that is
specified in the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Original Co-location Notice at 70049, note 7. Except
for the PNU Fee, Users are not charged for PNU cabinets until power
is activated, at which point the fees applicable to other cabinets
are charged (i.e., the $5,000 initial fee per cabinet and the per
kilowatt fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, neither
a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit
orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a an
OTP Holder, OTP Firm, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services). Additionally,
as is the case with existing co-location services, use of the co-
location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary and
would be available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\26\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\27\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members, issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer the additional services described
herein as a convenience to Users, but in doing so will incur certain
costs, including costs related to the data center facility, hardware
and equipment and costs related to personnel required for initial
installation and ongoing monitoring, support and maintenance of such
services. As with fees for existing co-location services, the fees
proposed herein would be charged only to those Users that voluntarily
select the related services, which would be available to all Users.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
equitable because it will result in fees being charged only to Users
that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and
because those services will be available to all Users.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable
because, for example, where the Exchange anticipates incurring a lower
marginal monthly cost per cross connect or with respect to cages, the
Exchange has proposed to apply a corresponding lower marginal monthly
fee. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the Change Fee is
reasonable because it would permit the Exchange to offset the expense
of completing changes to co-location services that the Exchange has
previously already established/completed for a User. Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that the Expedite Fee is reasonable because it would
permit the Exchange to charge a User for the expedited completion of
the delivery of a co-location service, which could require that the
Exchange expend increased resources (e.g., overtime labor costs) above
what would otherwise be required for non-expedited service. Users that
do not elect expedited service would not be disadvantaged by the
offering of that service as it would not affect normal delivery times
for services. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change
regarding the sixth 10 Gb LCN connection is reasonable because it would
incentivize Users to request at least five connections. The Exchange
understands that other exchanges and self-regulatory organizations
charge their members for certain similar co-location services.\28\
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the fees for LCN CSP Access
and CSP Subscribing Users are reasonable because they directly relate
to how Users are permitted to utilize these connections and the value
to each party to get the benefit of this service in the data center
without having to set up individual cross connections or experience the
latency that could be present if the service were only offered outside
the data center. The Exchange also believes that listing the PNU Fee
within the Fee Schedule at $360 per month, rather than as a formula,
will add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For example, similar to cross connects between cabinets of
different Users in the data center, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') Rule 7034 (Co-location Services) provides for
``External Telco/Inter-Cabinet Connectivity'' and includes charges
corresponding thereto. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64060
(March 8, 2011), 76 FR 13686 (March 14, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-035).
Additionally, similar to the proposed Expedite Fee, NASDAQ Rule 7034
provides for a ``Telco Connectivity Expedite Fee.'' See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62397 (June 28, 2010), 75 FR 38860 (July 6,
2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-019). Also, similar to the proposed fees for
cages, NASDAQ Rule 7034 provides for ``Cabinet Caging.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63189 (October 27, 2010), 75 FR
67414 (November 2, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-135). NASDAQ Rule 7034 also
provides for discounts for NASDAQ's co-location customers that
receive more than one unit of a particular service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein
are not unfairly discriminatory and are equitably allocated because, in
addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available
to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same range of products and
services are available to all Users and there is no differentiation
among Users with regard to the fees charged for a particular product,
service, or piece of equipment). In this regard, the proposed change
would not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants
that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location
fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time
by the Exchange.

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 that is 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-63 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 NYSEArca-2012-63. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number NYSEArca-2012-63 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16134 Filed 6-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47914-47915]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[US DOT [Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0022]

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on May 30, 2012 [77 FR 31910]. No comments were received.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. The collection of information
described is the ``Roof Crush Resistance Phase in Reporting
Requirements--Part 585.'' (OMB Control Number: 2127-XXXX)

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Louis N. Molino at U.S. Department
of Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Room W43-419, NVS-112, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Molino's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: Roof Crush Resistance Phase in Reporting Requirements--Part
585.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-XXXX.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30111 authorizes the issuance of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) and regulations. The agency, in
prescribing

a FMVSS or regulations, considers available relevant motor vehicle
safety data, and consults with other agencies, as it deems appropriate.
Further, the statute mandates that in issuing any FMVSS or regulation,
the agency considers whether the standard or regulation is
``reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed,'' and whether such a standard will contribute to carrying
out the purpose of the Act.
    The Secretary is authorized to invoke such rules and regulations,
as deemed necessary to carry out these requirements. Using this
authority, on May 12, 2009, the agency published a final rule (74 FR
22348) upgrading the requirements of FMVSS No. 216, ``Roof crush
resistance.'' The final rule contained a collection of information
because of the proposed phase-in reporting requirements. The collection
of information requires manufacturers of passenger cars and of trucks,
buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, to annually
submit a report, and maintain records related to the report, concerning
the number of such vehicles that meet two-sided quasi-static test
requirements of FMVSS No. 216 during the three year phase-in of those
requirements. The purpose of the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements is to assist the agency in determining whether a
manufacturer of vehicles has complied with the requirements during the
phase-in period.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,260 hours.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

    Issued on: August 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-19677 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 13147-13149]
[DOCID:fr20mr07-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55450; File No. SR-BSE-2007-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Existing Fee Schedules

March 13, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 2, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The BSE has designated this proposal as one changing a due,
fee, or other charge under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The BSE proposes amending the Boston Equities Exchange (``BeX'')
fee schedule to include a transaction fee to be charged to BSE Members
who request a BeX purchase & Sale Blotter reflecting the transaction
information related to the execution of a single order, part of which
was executed on BeX and part of which was executed at an away Trading
Center. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://www.bostonstock.com
, at the BSE, 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
    On November 20, 2006, the BSE filed BSE-2006-44, a rule filing that
amended the existing BSE fee schedule and established a fee schedule
for the BeX, a facility of the Exchange. BSE-2006-44 resulted in, among
other things, the deletion of all Transaction Fees, Electronic File
Access and Processing Fees, and Floor Operation Fees from the BSE fee
schedule. The Transaction Fees and Electronic File Access and
Processing Fees that were deleted from the BSE fee schedule were
transferred to the BeX fee schedule. The purpose of this proposed rule
change is to amend the BeX fee schedule to include a transaction fee
that was deleted from the BSE fee schedule but not transferred to the
BeX fee schedule as a part of BSE-2006-44. Specifically, the BSE fee
schedule contained a transaction fee titled ``Floor Brokered non-BSE
executions.'' The fee for Floor Brokered non-BSE executions was
$0.0005, or $0.05 per 100 shares. BSE Members were charged the Floor
Brokered non-BSE execution fee when the Member requested that the
information related to the execution of a single order, only a part of
which had been executed on the BSE with the remaining portion executed
at an away Trading Center, be reflected on a BSE Purchase & Sale
Blotter rather than having only the portion executed at the BSE
reflected on the BSE Purchase & Sale Blotter. In order to include the
information related to the portion of an order executed at the Trading
Center other than the BSE on a BSE Purchase & Sale Blotter, in other
words, in order to consolidate the transaction information on a single
report, the BSE performed the necessary back office operations on
behalf of the BSE Member so the transaction information, including the
information related to the portion of the order executed at an away
Trading Center, would appear on a BSE Purchase & Sale Blotter
reflecting the transaction information related to the execution of a
single order, part of which was executed on BeX and part of which was
executed at an away Trading Center. The fee would now be titled ``Non-
BeX executed trades'' and would appear on the BeX fee schedule. As
such, what had been known as the Floor Brokered non-BSE executions fee
on the BSE schedule will now appear on the BeX fee schedule as the Non-
BeX executed trades fee and will apply in the BeX environment.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in
particular, in that it is designated to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange
members and issuers and other persons using Exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is 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

    The Exchange has 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 proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\8\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will
take effect upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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-BSE-2007-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-11. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
BSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-
2007-11 and should be submitted on or before April 10, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4976 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60000-60002]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24039]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67922; File No. SR-CME-2012-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Allow FCM Clearing Member CEOs and CFOs To Designate
Authorized Representatives To Approve Certain Disbursements of Customer
Funds

September 25, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 24, 2012, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by CME. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons and to approve the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME proposes to make amendments to CME Rule 971 regarding the CME's
segregation, secured and sequestered requirements for swaps as part of
an industry wide initiative that is designed to further safeguard
customer funds held at the futures commission merchant (``FCM'') level.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the CME's Web
site at http://www.cmegroup.com, at the principal office of CME, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organizations Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CME 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 III below. CME 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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and operates a
substantial business clearing futures and swaps contracts subject to
the jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME proposes to make rule changes to CME
Rule 971 in coordination with the implementation by the National
Futures Association (``NFA'') of parallel revisions to NFA rules. The
proposed rule changes are designed to further

safeguard customer funds held at the FCM level.
    CME notes that it recently amended Rule 971 to, among other things,
add new subsection D, which requires the chief executive officer
(``CEO'') or chief financial officer (``CFO'') of a futures commission
merchant (``FCM'') clearing member to pre-approve any disbursement from
customer segregated, secured or sequestered funds that exceeds 25% of
the excess of such origin and was not for the benefit of a customer.\3\
In a continuing effort to enhance regulation of customer funds at the
FCM level, and to harmonize industry requirements, CME in this filing
now proposes to allow authorized representatives of the FCM's CEO or
CFO to pre-approve such disbursements. The FCM's CEO and CFO will
remain responsible for any pre-approvals by their authorized
representative. The filing would also separately amend Rule 971.A to
include a reference to CFTC Regulation 1.49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On November 5, 2012, in connection with implementation of
the CFTC's Part 22 Regulations, references to ``sequestered''
accounts in Rule 971 will be changed to Cleared Swaps Customer
accounts, and references to CME rules for sequestered accounts will
be deleted. These changes were the subject of a separate CME filing
with the Commission, SR-CME-2012-30. The text of the proposed
changes associated with this filing contains the current
``sequestered'' terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CME intends to make the proposed changes effective on September 28,
2012. CME also made a filing, CME Submission 12-281, with its primary
regulator, the CFTC, with respect to the proposed changes.
    CME believes the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act. First, CME, a derivatives clearing
organization, is implementing the proposed changes in furtherance with
applicable CFTC regulations and Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''), which
contains a number of provisions that are comparable to the policies
underlying the Exchange Act, including, for example, promoting market
transparency for derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest. Second, CME believes the proposed changes are specifically
designed to protect investors and the public interest because the
requirements help safeguard customer funds held at the FCM level.

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2012-37 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-CME-2012-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's Web
site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-37
and should be submitted on or before October 22, 2012.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    Section 19(b) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act, and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to CME.\5\ Specifically, the Commission concludes
that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible and to protect investors and the public
interest.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, CME requested that the Commission approve these
proposed rule changes on an accelerated basis, so they can become
effective on September 28, 2012. CME cites as the reason for this
request that the proposed changes are part of an industry wide
initiative that is specifically designed to protect investors and the
public interest through adoption of requirements that help safeguard
customer funds held at the FCM level.
    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\7\ for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th
day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register
because the rule change is designed to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-CME-2012-37) be, and hereby is,
approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary .
[FR Doc. 2012-24039 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 25392]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14768-000]

Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice Of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted For Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 11, 2016, the Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an
application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Salamonie
Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14768-000, to be located at the
existing Salamonie Lake Dam on the Salamonie River, near the town of
Wabash, in Wabash County, Indiana. The Salamonie Lake Dam is owned by
the United States government and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Louisville District.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new 15-foot by 10-foot
by 90-foot-long concrete conduit; (2) a new 98-foot by 45-foot
reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two 2.5-megawatt (MW)
vertical Kaplan turbine-generators having a total combined generating
capacity of 5 MW; (3) a new 300-foot-long by 95-foot-wide tailrace; (4)
a new 60-foot-long by 50-foot-wide substation with a 6-mega-volt-ampere
4.16/69-kilovolt three-phase step-up transformer; (5) a new 2-mile-
long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The project would have an estimated annual generation of 13.76
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, 350 Lincoln Road, 2nd Floor,
Miami, FL 33139; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14768-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14768) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 22, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09937 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


A meeting material submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) during a non-government stakeholder listening session with the OMB and various EOP offices held on 06/23/2022 for the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Program Under the Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention. A Proposed Rule.

Attachment 1.	API-OMB 62322 Final