[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47604-47605]
[DOCID:fr06au10-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2003-D-0243] (formerly 2003D-0571)

Guidance for Industry on Drug Substance Chemistry, Manufacturing,
and Controls Information; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry 169 entitled ``Drug
Substance Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information.'' This
guidance provides recommendations on the chemistry, manufacturing, and
controls (CMC) information for drug substances that should be submitted
to support original new animal drug applications (NADAs) and
abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs). The guidance is
structured to facilitate the preparation of applications submitted in
Common Technical Document (CTD) format.

DATES:  Submit either electronic or written comments on agency
guidances at any time.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit
written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Alem Ghiorghis, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-143), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31194), FDA
published the notice of withdrawal and revision of seven guidances. CVM
made Level II revisions to draft guidance entitled ``Drug Substance
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls

Information'' to support their continued use in CVM for the approval of
new animal drugs (e.g., removed references to human drug and biological
products). The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft
guidance dated June 1, 2006.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the agency's current thinking on the topic. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) have been approved under OMB Control
No. 0910-0032.

IV. Comments

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and
Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/
GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http:/
/www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 30, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-19360 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: December 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 70444-70445]
[DOCID:fr04de06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 605 of Regulation NMS, SEC File No. 270-488, OMB Control
No. 3235-0542
    Rule 606 of Regulation NMS, SEC File No. 270-489, OMB Control
No. 3235-0541

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 605 of Regulation NMS (17 CFR 242.605),\1\ f/k/a Rule 11Ac1-5
(17 CFR 240.11Ac1-5), requires market centers to make available to the
public monthly order execution reports in electronic form. The
Commission believes that many market centers retain most, if not all,
the underlying raw data necessary to generate these reports in
electronic format. Once the necessary data is collected, market centers
could either program their systems to generate the statistics and
reports, or transfer the data to a service provider (such as an
independent company in the business of preparing such reports or a
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')) that would generate the
statistics and reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regulation NMS, adopted by the Commission in June 2005,
redesignated the national market system rules previously adopted
under Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act''). Rule 11Ac1-5 under the Exchange Act was redesignated Rule
605 of Regulation NMS, and Rule 11Ac1-6 under the Exchange Act was
redesignated Rule 606 of Regulation NMS. No substantive amendments
were made to Rule 605 and Rule 606 of Regulation NMS. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information obligations of Rule 605 apply to all
market centers that receive covered orders in national market system
securities. The Commission estimates that approximately 302 market
centers are subject to the collection of information obligations of
Rule 605. Each of these respondents is required to respond to the
collection of information on a monthly basis.
    The Commission staff estimates that, on average, Rule 605 causes
respondents to spend 6 hours per month in additional time to collect
the data necessary to generate the reports, or 72 hours per year. With
an estimated 302 market centers subject to Rule 605, the total data
collection cost to comply with the monthly reporting requirement is
estimated to be 21,744 hours per year.
    Rule 606 of Regulation NMS (``Rule 606'') (17 CFR 242.606), f/k/a
Rule 11Ac1-6 (17 CFR 240.11Ac1-6), requires broker-dealers to prepare
and disseminate quarterly order routing reports. Much of the
information needed to generate these reports already should be
collected by broker-dealers in connection with their periodic
evaluations of their order routing practices. Broker-dealers must
conduct such evaluations to fulfill the duty of best execution that
they owe their customers.
    The collection of information obligations of Rule 606 applies to
broker-dealers that route non-directed customer orders in covered
securities. The Commission estimates that out of the currently 3120
broker-dealers that are subject to the collection of information
obligations of Rule 606, clearing brokers bear a substantial portion of
the burden of complying with

the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of Rule 606 on behalf of
small to mid-sized introducing firms. There currently are approximately
567 clearing brokers. In addition, there are approximately 1479
introducing brokers that receive funds or securities from their
customers. Because at least some of these firms also may have greater
involvement in determining where customer orders are routed for
execution, they have been included, along with clearing brokers, in
estimating the total burden of Rule 606.
    The Commission staff estimates that each firm significantly
involved in order routing practices incurs an average burden of 40
hours to prepare and disseminate a quarterly report required by Rule
606, or a burden of 160 hours per year. With an estimated 2046 broker-
dealers significantly involved in order routing practices, the total
burden per year to comply with the quarterly reporting requirement in
Rule 606 is estimated to be 327,360 hours.
    Rule 606 requires broker-dealers to respond to individual customer
requests for information on orders handled by the broker-dealer for
that customer. Clearing brokers generally bear the burden of responding
to these requests. The Commission staff estimates that an average
clearing broker incurs an annual burden of 400 hours (2000 responses x
0.2 hours/response) to prepare, disseminate, and retain responses to
customers required by Rule 606. With an estimated 567 clearing brokers
subject to Rule 606, the total burden per year to comply with the
customer response requirement in Rule 606 is estimated to be 226,800
hours.
    The collection of information obligations imposed by Rule 605 and
Rule 606 are mandatory. The response will be available to the public
and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to comply with, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be
directed to the following persons: (1) The Desk Officer for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: November 20, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20431 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26832-26837]
[DOCID:fr12my10-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62052; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. to Clarify,
Eliminate, Revise, or Delete Certain Out-Dated or Obsolete Rules

May 6, 2010.
    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 April 28, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``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 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\ 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 revise its rules by clarifying existing
provisions, eliminating superfluous provisions, and revising or
deleting certain out-dated or obsolete rules. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to revise certain Exchange rules in
order to clarify existing provisions, eliminate superfluous provisions,
delete certain out-dated or obsolete rules and to incorporate current
policies and procedures applicable to existing rules. A description of
each of the proposed rules changes is shown below.
    Rule 2.12--OTP Holders and OTP Firms:
    Rule 2.12(a) requires that each OTP Firm and OTP Holder shall be
fully qualified to do business in California. This rule dates back to
when NYSE Arca (f/k/a The Pacific Exchange) was headquartered in
California and all business on the Exchange was conducted on the
physical trading floor.
    While the Exchange still operates a trading floor in California,
OTP Holders and OTP Firms are not required to have a floor presence.
OTP Holders and OTP Firms are able to conduct business from remote
locations throughout the country.
    NYSE Arca proposes to remove this outdated and obsolete requirement
that OTP Holders and OTP Firms be fully qualified to conduct business
in California.
    Rule 2.24--Floor Employees of OTP Firms:
    Rule 2.24(d) states that an OTP Firm or OTP Holder with an employee
on the options trading floor of the Exchange must have at least one OTP
Holder or nominee present on the floor at all times, and that such OTP
Holders or nominees shall be responsible for all floor employees of the
OTP Firm. The rationale for this rule is to help ensure that there is
adequate supervision of all firm employees while on the options trading
floor.
    With the advent of remote market making and electronic access, NYSE
Arca no longer requires that all OTP Holders, or nominees thereof, be
physically present on the floor. However, there could be occasions
where an OTP Firm does have employees on the floor, but the actual
person designated as the OTP Holder works from a remote location. These
employees would typically operate in a trade support, technical or
clearing capacity, but would not be directly involved in the trading of
options.
    Pursuant to Rule 11.18, OTP Holders or OTP Firms must establish and
maintain a system to supervise the activities of its associated persons
and the operations of its business. Such system must be reasonably
designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws
and regulations and the rulers [sic] of NYSE Arca. In addition, OTP
Holders and OTP Firms must designate a person with authority to
reasonably discharge his/her duties and obligations in connection with
supervision and control of the activities of the associated persons of
the OTP Holder or OTP Firm. In addition, the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
must undertake reasonable efforts to determine that all supervisory
personnel are qualified by virtue of experience or training to carry
out their assigned responsibilities.
    The Exchange now proposes to revise Rule 2.24 so that an OTP Holder
or OTP Firm with employees on the options trading floor, none of which
are directly involved in the trading of options, will no longer be
required to have an OTP Holder, or Nominee thereof, present on the
options trading floor at all times. Instead, the Exchange proposes that
in keeping with the supervisory obligations contained in rule 11.18,
OTP Holders and OTP Firms with non-trading employees on the options
floor, must have at least one employee with supervisory
responsibilities present on the trading floor. Each OTP Holder or OTP
Firm must designate and specifically identify to the Exchange one or
more persons who will be responsible for supervision and control of the
activities of the associated persons of the OTP Holder or OTP Firm.
    This rule change does not in any way affect the obligation of OTP
Holders and OTP Firms to properly supervise their floor employees. The
proposed rule change is simply designed to offer flexibility to OTP
Holders and OTP Firms when establishing their supervisory systems in
accordance with Rule 11.18.
    Rule 3.1--Overview:
    Rule 3.1 Commentary .01 contains an outdated provision related to
the demutualization of The Pacific Exchange (n/k/a NYSE Arca).
Commentary .01 states that rule changes regarding demutualization in
SR-PCX-2004-08 would become effective once the appropriate federal and
state regulatory approvals were received and NYSE Arca filed the
applicable documentation with the State of Delaware. All approvals
pertaining to the demutualization of the Pacific Exchange were
received, and all applicable documentation was filed with the State of
Delaware. The Exchange now proposes to delete Rule 3.1 Commentary .01,
in its entirety.
    Rule 6.17--Verification of Compared Trades and Reconciliation of
Uncompared Trades:
    Rule 6.17 Commentary .01 states that OTP Holders and OTP Firms that
are clearing members of the Options Clearing Corporation must have a
representative physically present on the trading floor to reconcile
uncompared trades. In addition, Rule 6.17 Commentary .01 contains
guidelines for how long such representative must remain on the floor
after the close of trading.
    The Exchange realizes that it is no longer necessary for a
representative of an OTP Holder or OTP Firm to be physically present on
the trading floor in order to reconcile uncompared trades. Thus, the
Exchange proposes to revise Rule 6.17, Commentary .01 by adding
language stating that in addition to being physically present on the
floor, such representative may be accessible via telephone or e-
mail.\3\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to remove the specific
guidelines for how long a representative must remain available after
the close of trading and instead state that a representative of an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm must be available to resolve unmatched trades until
the

final trade transmission is sent to The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OTP Holders and OTP Firms are required to keep a current e-
mail address on file with the Exchange. In addition, the NYSE Arca
Trade Processing Department maintains contact names and phone
numbers for all OTP Holders.
    \4\ This requirement is based on Rule 6.61(a) of The Chicago
Board Options Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.17 also states that OTP Holders and OTP Firms, that are
clearing members of the Options Clearing Corporation, must have a
representative present on the floor each Saturday immediately following
expiration, and that it is the responsibility of the Exchange staff
member to determine that such representative is present. The Exchange
now proposes to add language stating that an alternative to being
physically present on the floor, such representative may be accessible
via telephone or e-mail.
    In addition, Exchange staff will no longer make a determination as
to whether representatives are present on the Trading Floor, or
otherwise accessible. However, it will be considered a violation of
Rule 6.17 if the responsible OTP Holder or OTP Firm is not available to
reconcile an uncompared trade when contacted by NYSE Arca Trade
Processing Department.
    Currently, OTP Holders that fail to remain accessible for a
specified amount of time after trade processing are subject to
disciplinary action pursuant to the NYSE Arca Minor Rule Plan. The
Exchange proposes to revise the text in Rule 10.12(h)(9) and Rule
10.12(k)(9) of the Minor Rule Plan to state that it will be a violation
if an OTP Holder is not available when contacted by the Exchange to
reconcile an uncompared trade.
    Rule 6.29--Payment for Floor Brokerage Services:
    When an OTP Holder acts as a Floor Broker for another OTP Holder
they may receive remuneration for such brokerage services. Rule 6.29
states that payment of brokerage commissions to Floor Brokers shall be
made no later than the thirtieth day of the month provided that an
invoice detailing the brokerage charges for the services performed is
delivered to the OTP Holder or OTP Firm receiving such brokerage
services no later than the tenth day of that month.
    The terms of floor brokerage remuneration is generally spelled out
in a contractual agreement between OTP Holders. The Exchange does not
set commission rates for brokerage services, nor is the Exchange a
party to any contractual agreements between OTP Holders, nor is the
Exchange involved in the billing and collecting of such commissions.
All terms related to the payment of brokerage commissions are between
OTP Holders, and do not in any way involve the Exchange.\5\ Therefore,
NYSE Arca does not believe there is cause for an Exchange rule that
specifies when payment for brokerage services is payable by OTP
Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that books and records pertaining to
brokerage commissions may be requested by the Exchange during the
course of an examination or investigation of OTP Holders and OTP
Firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete the text of Rule 6.29 in its
entirety and reserve the rule number for future use.
Rule 6.32--Market Maker Defined
    6.32A--Market Maker Defined--OX:
    Rule 6.32(a) defines a Market Maker as an individual who is
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of making transactions as
a dealer-specialist on the Floor of the Exchange or for the purpose of
submitting quotes electronically and making transactions as a dealer-
specialist through the NYSE Arca OX electronic trading system.
    Rule 6.32A defines a Market Maker as an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that
is registered with the Exchange for the purpose of submitting quotes
electronically and making transactions as a dealer-specialist through
the OX trading platform from on the trading floor or remotely from off
the trading floor.
    Both 6.32(a) and 6.32A also contain additional descriptive language
regarding Market Makers, and Lead Market Makers. This language is
virtually identical in both rules. In addition, Rule 6.32A contains a
provision that states that a Market Maker submitting quotes remotely is
not eligible to participate in trades effected in open outcry except to
the extent that such Market Maker's quotation represents the BBO.
    Given that the two rules described above are vastly similar, the
Exchange now proposes to delete Rule 6.32A in its entirety while
incorporating a portion of it into Rule 6.32(a). Since most of Rule
6.32A is already included in Rule 6.32(a), Rule 6.32(a) will remain
virtually unchanged except for the addition of a new subsection (2)
which will contain the provision from Rule 6.32A regarding a remote
Market Maker's ability to participate in trades effected in open
outcry.
    This proposal is intended to simplify existing rules regarding the
definition of a Market Maker by deleting the duplicative text contained
in Rule 6.32A, while incorporating the still relevant portions into
Rule 6.32(a). This rule change will not in any way affect the rights or
obligations of Market Makers.
    The Exchange also proposes to make technical revisions to rule
reference contained in Rule 6.1A(a)(8) and Rule 6.87 Commentary .05 to
reflect the proposed change to Rule 6.32A.
Rule 6.36--Letters of Guarantee
    Rule 6.45--Letters of Authorization:
    Rule 6.36(c) addresses Letters of Guarantee for Market Makers and
states that a Letter of Guarantee shall remain in effect until a final
written notice of revocation has been filed with the Exchange and
posted on the bulletin board of the Options Trading Floor. If such
final written notice has not been posted for at least one hour prior to
the opening of trading on a particular business day, such revocation
shall not become effective until the close of trading on such day.
    Rule 6.45(c) addresses Letters of Authorization for Floor Brokers
and states that a Letter of Authorization shall remain in effect until
a written notice of revocation has been filed with the Exchange and
posted on the bulletin board of the Options Trading Floor. If such
written notice has not been posted for at least one hour prior to the
opening of trading on a particular business day, such revocation shall
not become effective until the close of trading on such day.
    NYSE Arca believes that the posting of notices of revocation on a
bulletin board is simply an administrative function of the Exchange and
should not actually define when a notice of revocation should be
effective. The Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to
require the actual posting of notices of revocations in order for them
to be effective, provided the Exchange does receive notification at
least one hour prior to the opening of trading.
    The Exchange now proposes to revise Rule 6.36(c) and Rule 6.45(c)
by removing the requirement that the Exchange post the Letter of
Revocation on the bulletin board on the floor one hour before the
opening of business in order for the revocation to be effective.
Instead, pursuant to the proposed rule change, Letters of Guarantee and
Letters of Authorization will remain in effect until a final written
notice of revocation has been filed via e-mail with the Exchange. If
such final written notice has not been received via e-mail by the
Exchange at least one hour prior to the opening of trading on a
particular business day, such revocation shall not become effective
until the close of trading on such day.
    Making notices of revocation, filed one hour before the opening of
trading, effective without posting on a bulletin

board is consistent with rules regarding notices of revocation
presently in place at NASDAQ OMX PHLX, and NYSE Amex.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NASDAQ PHLX OMX Rule 1062(c), NYSE Amex Rule 924NY(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recognizes that posting notices on the bulletin board
also serves as a way to communicate membership information to OTP
Holders. Accordingly, NYSE Arca will continue to publish the names of
all terminated Market Makers and Floor Brokers in the Weekly Bulletin.
The Weekly Bulletin is distributed via e-mail to all OTP Holders and is
also posted on the Exchange Web site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSE Arca Weekly Bulletins can be found at http://
www.nyx.com/regulation, under ``Public Information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 6.37--Obligations of Market Makers
    Rule 6.37A--Obligations of Market Makers--OX:
    NYSE Arca proposes to amend Rules 6.37 and 6.37A by eliminating
provisions in each rule that provide for bids/offers to be no higher/
lower than the last preceding transaction plus or minus the aggregate
change in the last sale price of the underlying security (``one point
rule'').
    Specifically, Rule 6.37(b)(2) and Rule 6.37A(b)(6) both provide
that Market Makers are expected ordinarily not to bid more than $1
lower or offer more than $1 higher than the last preceding transaction
price for the particular option contract plus or minus the aggregate
change in the last sale price of the underlying security since the time
of the last preceding transaction for the particular option contract.
    The Exchange now proposes to eliminate the one point rule. The one
point rule was first established when NYSE Arca (f/k/a The Pacific
Exchange) started trading listed options in 1976. Since that time
various market changes have rendered the rule obsolete and unnecessary.
For example, market makers are now subject to various quotation
requirements, including bid/ask quote width requirements contained
elsewhere in Rules 6.37 and 6.37A. The Exchange also has an obvious
error rule that contains provisions on erroneous pricing errors (e.g.,
Rule 6.87). In addition, the NYSE Arca automated trading system has in
place certain price check parameters that will not permit the automatic
execution of certain orders if the execution would take place at prices
inferior to the national best bid/offer.
    The text of Rule 6.37(b)(2) and Rule 6.37A(b)(6) will be deleted;
however the Exchange proposes to designate the rule numbers as
``reserved'' for possible future use.
    The elimination of the NYSE Arca one point rule is consistent with
similar rule changes by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
and the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60295 (July 13,
2009), 74 FR 35215 (July 20, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-49) and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60897 (October 28, 2009) 74 FR 57217
(November 4, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-85).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca is also proposing to make non-substantive changes to
certain provisions of Rules 6.37 and 6.37A containing references to the
proposed rule deletions.
    Rule 6.60--Order Service Firms:
    An Order Service Firm is an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that is
registered with the Exchange for the purpose of accepting orders for
the purchase or sale of stocks or commodity futures contracts from
Market Makers on the Floor of the Exchange, and forwarding such orders
for execution.
    Prior to the advent of electronic access to the equities markets,
Market Makers on the floor of the Exchange would use Order Service
Firms to place stock orders used in hedging options trades. All Market
Makers now have electronic access to the equities markets, rendering
the use of an Order Service Firm obsolete. There are presently no Order
Service Firms operating on the floor,\9\ nor does the Exchange
anticipate ever having the need for them in the future. Therefore, NYSE
Arca proposes to delete the language from Rule 6.60 in its entirety,
and reserve the rule number for possible future use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The last Order Service Firm ceased operations on the floor
of the Exchange in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.66--Order Identification:
    Rule 6.66 deals with order identification and a Floor Broker's
responsibility to disclose certain information pertaining to the party
for whom they are acting as agent.
    Rule 6.66 Commentary .01 requires a Floor Broker, when requesting a
market and size, to disclose the name of the OTP Holder or OTP Firm for
whom he is acting. Commentary .01 goes on to say a Floor Broker must,
upon request, disclose the name of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm
immediately upon effecting any transaction.
    NYSE Arca no longer believes that it is necessarily in the best
interest of the marketplace to require Floor Brokers to supply such
information when requesting quotations or effecting transactions. The
Exchange feels that disclosing the name of the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
when asking for a market and size could lead to disparate treatment on
the part of trading crowd participants. Furthermore, requiring a Floor
Broker to disclose the name of the OTP Holder or OTP Firm participating
on a trade is not in keeping with an effort to provide anonymity when
trading on NYSE Arca.
    While these provisions may have had merit when initially enacted,
they have become outdated by today's standards. There are other
provisions within Exchange rules requiring a Floor Broker to disclose
when they are trading on behalf of a BD or Market Maker, without
compromising the anonymity of the market. Therefore, the Exchange
proposes to eliminate Commentary .01 in its entirety.
    Rule 6.68--Record of Orders:
    Rule 6.68(a) requires OTP Holder and OTP Firms to maintain and
preserve a record of every order and of any other instruction given or
received for the purchase or sale of option contracts for the period
specified under SEC Rule 17a-4. Rule 6.68(a) also states that the
Exchange shall maintain and preserve all electronic orders on behalf of
OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
    The maintenance and preservation of electronic orders by the
Exchange, on behalf of OTP Holders and OTP Firms, came about in 2004
when the Exchange introduced the Electronic Order Capture (``EOC'')
System.\10\ The EOC system is the Exchange's electronic audit trail and
order tracking system designed to provide an accurate time-sequenced
record of all orders and transactions on the Exchange. Prior to the
introduction of the EOC system, all orders were written on paper
tickets, the maintenance of which was the responsibility of OTP Holders
and OTP Firms. The EOC system is an Exchange proprietary system and at
the time it was introduced OTP Holders and OTP Firms did not have
access to historic order records contained in the system. In order to
allow OTP Holders and OTP Firms to remain in compliance with their own
books and records requirements, the Exchange preserved and maintained
all records of electronic orders on their behalf. In the event an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm needed access to these order records, the Exchange
would furnish such records upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SR-PCX-2004-122 (December 14, 2004), Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 50854 (December 14, 2004), 72 FR 76808
(December 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 2007, the Exchange made electronic order records
available to OTP Holders and OTP Firms via an electronic file. OTP
Holders and OTP Firms are able to download this file on

a daily basis and store the information on their own proprietary
systems. The information contained in the daily report is identical to
the information that the Exchange kept on behalf of OTP Holders and OTP
Firms. Each daily trade report remains available on-line for a period
of thirty days. Since OTP Holders and OTP Firms can now access this
information themselves, there is no longer an ongoing need for the
Exchange to maintain such records on behalf of OTP Holders and OTP
Firms. The Exchange now proposes to remove the provision in Rule
6.68(a) that states that the Exchange shall maintain and preserve all
electronic orders on behalf of OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
    NYSE Arca notes that this proposed rule change only affects the
Exchange's maintenance and preservation of electronic order records on
behalf of OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The proposed rule change does not
in any way alter the Exchange's obligation to maintain and preserve
order records pursuant to its own books and records requirements.
    Rule 6.70--Price Binding Despite Erroneous Report:
    Rule 6.70 states that the price at which an order is executed shall
be binding notwithstanding that an erroneous report in respect thereto
may have been rendered, or no report rendered. In addition, Rule 6.70
contains commentary pertaining to erroneous prints and trades in
securities underlying options traded on the Exchange.
    At the time this rule was adopted in 1999,\11\ all trading was
conducted on the floor of the Exchange via open outcry. Since that
time, the Exchange has introduced electronic options trading, along
with associated rules governing such trading. Specifically, erroneous
transactions in the electronic market are governed by Rule 6.87. The
Exchange now proposes to add commentary to Rule 6.70 stating that the
rule is applicable only to non-electronic orders and transactions. The
proposed rule change does not alter existing Exchange procedures
pertaining to erroneous transactions, but simply serves to offer
clarity on the applicability of Rule 6.70 to open outcry transactions
only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-PCX-1999-44 (October 29, 1999), Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 43149 (August 11, 2000), 65 FR 51392 (August 23,
2000) (File No. SR-PCX-99-44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The changes proposed in this filing are simply designed to eliminate or
revise outdated or obsolete rules and practices on NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received with respect
to the proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEArca-2010-38 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-NYSEArca-2010-38.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-38 and should be submitted on or before
June 2, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11253 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24114-24115]
[DOCID:fr01my08-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for
Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT) under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47504 et seq. (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act,
hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR part 150 by City of
Fresno, California. This program was submitted subsequent to a
determination by FAA that associated noise exposure maps submitted
under 14 CFR part 150 for FAT were in compliance with applicable
requirements, effective July 6, 2005 (70 FR 50437-50438). The proposed
noise compatibility program will be approved or disapproved on or
before October 15, 2008.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the start of FM's review
of the noise compatibility program is April 18, 2008. The public
comment period ends June 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional
Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration,
Western Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007,
Telephone 310/725-3615. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility
program should also be submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for FAT, which will be
approved or disapproved on or before October 15, 2008. This notice also
announces the availability of this program for public review and
comment.
    An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act,
may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets
forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to reduce
existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The City of Fresno initially submitted its noise compatibility
program for the subject airport to the FAA on May 26, 2006 (71 FR
33032-33033). In a letter received by FAA on September 15, 2006, the
City of Fresno requested that FAA suspend its review and processing of
the noise compatibility program in order to modify the document. FAA
terminated its formal review of the City of Fresno's noise
compatibility program effective September 15, 2006 (71 FR 56582). The
City of Fresno has submitted their revised noise compatibility program
to FAA. Therefore, the FAA has formally received the noise
compatibility program for FAT, effective on April 18, 2008. The airport
operator has requested that the FAA review this material and that the
noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and
surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program
under section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted
material indicates that it conforms to FAR Part 150 requirements for
the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review
will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The
formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be
completed on or before October 15, 2008.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 150, Sec.  150.33. The primary considerations
in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce
the level of aviation safety or create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, and whether they are reasonably consistent with
obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and
preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to
these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use
authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed noise compatibility
program are available for examination at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration, National Headquarters, Planning and
Environmental Division, APP-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room
621, Washington, DC 20591.
Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Office, Airports
Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California
90261.
Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific Region, San Francisco
Airports District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Suite 210, Burlingame,
California 94010.
City of Fresno, Mr. Kevin Meikle, Airports Planning Manager, 4995 East
Clinton Way, Fresno, CA 93727-1525.

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on April 18, 2008.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, AWP-600, Western-Pacific Region.
 [FR Doc. E8-9532 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


39087 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2003 / Notices http:// www. epa. gov/ osp/ spc/ 2polprog. htm. To obtain a written copy of the `` Assessment Factors Document'', you may contact either of the individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Elaine Stanley, Director, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information. [ FR Doc. 03   16328 Filed 6   30   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7520   7]

Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of final issuance.

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 today are issuing EPA's final NPDES general permit for discharges from large and small construction activities. Hereinafter, the terms `` permit'' or `` construction general permit'' or `` CGP'' will replace `` permits.'' Today's permit will replace the existing permit covering large construction sites in EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 that expired on February 17, 2003 and the permit covering large construction sites in EPA Region 6 that expires July 6, 2003. Today's permit covers large construction sites in EPA Region 5. In addition, today's permit incorporates coverage of small construction activity in EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. State Coastal Zone Management Act ( CZMA) certification was not received from Massachusetts in time for that state to be included in this permit. As such, large construction activities in Massachusetts covered under the 1998 permit will continue to be covered under that permit. Today's permit is similar to the 1998 permits and will authorize the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff associated with construction activities in accordance with the terms and conditions described therein. DATES: The effective date of this permit is July 1, 2003. The permit will expire five years from the effective date. ADDRESSES: The administrative record is available for inspection and copying at the Water Docket, located at the EPA Docket Center in the basement of the EPA West Building, Room B   102, at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the final permit, the permit's Notice of Intent ( NOI) or Notice of Termination ( NOT) requirements, visit EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater/ cgp, contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office listed in I. B., or contact Jack Faulk, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water, EPA Headquarters at tel.: ( 202) 564   0768 or email at faulk. jack@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Permit. Copies of the permit, permit fact sheet, and the Response to Comments document may be downloaded from EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater/ cgp. 2. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OW   2002   0055. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566   2426. 3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. B. Who Are the EPA Regional Contacts for This Permit?

For EPA Region 1, contact Thelma Murphy at tel.: ( 617) 918   1615 or e mail at murphy. thelma@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 2, contact Karen O'Brien at tel.: ( 212) 637   3717 or e mail at obrien. karen@ epa. gov or for Puerto Rico, Sergio Bosques at tel.: ( 787) 977   5838 or e mail at bosques. sergio@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 3, contact William Toffel at tel.: ( 215) 814   5706 or toffel. william@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at tel.: ( 312) 886   0981 or e mail at bell. brianc@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 6, contact Brent Larsen at tel.: ( 214) 665   7523 or e mail at larsen. brent@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at tel.: ( 913) 551   7635 or email at matthews. mark@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 8, contact Greg Davis at tel.: ( 303) 312   6082 or e mail at davis. gregory@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.: ( 415) 972   3510 or email at bromley. eugene@ epa. gov. For EPA Region 10, contact Misha Vakoc at tel.: ( 206) 553   6650 or e mail at vakoc. misha@ epa. gov.

II. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory History Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 ( WQA) added section 402( p) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), which directed EPA to develop a phased approach to regulate storm water discharges under the NPDES program. EPA published a final regulation on the first phase of this program on November 16, 1990, establishing permit application requirements for `` storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.'' EPA defined the term `` storm water discharge associated with industrial activity'' in a comprehensive manner to cover a wide variety of facilities. Construction activities that disturb at least five acres of land and have point source discharges to waters of the U. S. were included in the definition of `` industrial activity'' pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26( b)( 14)( x). Phase II of the storm water program was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999. Phase II includes sites disturbing equal to or greater than one acre and less than five acres as well as sites less than one acre of total land area that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb equal to or greater than one and less than five acres. Small VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 39 Jun 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM 01JYN1 39088 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2003 / Notices construction activity is defined per 40 CFR 122.26( b)( 15)( i). In developing the Phase II storm water regulations, EPA conducted an analysis of the potential impacts of the regulation on the National economy and also analyzed impacts on small businesses. These impacts focused on implementation of sediment and erosion control practices or best management practices to reduce pollutants commonly associated with construction storm water discharges. In performing these analyses, EPA considered affected industrial sectors, including the oil and gas industry. Initially, EPA determined that few, if any oil and gas exploration sites would be affected by Phase II and impacts on the accuracy of Phase II rule cost estimates were unlikely to be significant. Therefore, EPA did not include oil and gas exploration sites in the Final Draft of the Economic Analysis of the Phase II Final Rule. Since rule promulgation, EPA has become aware that close to 30,000 oil and gas sites may be affected by the Phase II storm water regulations. On March 10, 2003 ( 68 FR 11325), EPA postponed the permit requirement for small oil and gas small construction activity from March 10, 2003, to March 10, 2005. During the two year postponement, EPA plans to work with states, industry, and other entities to gather and evaluate data on the development and use of appropriate best management practices for the oil and gas industry.

B. Summary of Significant Changes From 1998 Construction General Permit This permit replaces the previous Construction General Permits which were issued for a five year term by various EPA Regions in February 1998 ( 63 FR 7858) and July 1998 ( 63 FR 36490). The organization and numbering of today's CGP has been revised slightly from the 1998 CGP to more clearly present permittee responsibilities. In addition, following is a list of significant changes included in the CGP as compared to the February 1998 CGP. These changes are discussed in more detail in the CGP fact sheet. 1. Change in Permit Areas Covered. i. Additions. a. Indian Country within the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, b. State of New Mexico, c. Discharges in the State of Oklahoma that are not under the authority of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, including activities associated with oil and gas exploration, drilling, operations, and pipelines ( includes SIC Groups 13 and 46, and SIC Codes 492 and 5171), and point source discharges associated with agricultural production, services, and silviculture ( includes SIC Groups 01, 02, 07, 08, and 09), and d. Discharges in the State of Texas that are not under the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( formerly TNRCC), including activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas or geothermal resources, including transportation of crude oil or natural gas by pipeline. ii. Deletions. a. State of Maine, b. Indian Country, including disputed areas, within the State of Maine, and c. State of Arizona. 2. Permit coverage modified to include small construction activities ( those disturbing one to five acres), and to provide waivers for small construction for low rainfall erosivity, total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs), and equivalent analyses. 3. Uncontaminated excavation dewatering added as an allowable nonstorm water discharge. 4. Restrictions and documentation requirements added for discharges to waters with TMDLs, and procedures included for addressing attainment of water quality standards. 5. State and county Endangered Species Act ( ESA) appendix of Federally listed or proposed species removed. 6. Discharge authorization procedures and NOI submission deadlines altered to accommodate new seven day ESA reviews of NOIs by U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and to account for ongoing projects. 7. Information required on NOI form modified to require: i. Applicable permit number; ii. Internal Revenue Service Employer Identification Number; iii. Methodology for determining latitude and longitude; iv. Name of Indian reservation or affiliated Tribe; v. Address of SWPPP location ( changed from optional to required); vi. Whether the discharge is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of applicable EPA approved or established TMDLs; and vii. The specific permit tracking number of an operator certifying under criterion F. 8. Language added to support the operator's ability to submit NOIs and NOTs using EPA's electronic NOI system when available. 9. Procedure clarified for operator to delineate on the SWPPP areas of the project where no further requirements apply following earth disturbing activities and stabilization. 10. Requirement to provide an estimate of the site's runoff coefficient for pre and post construction conditions removed. 11. Documentation requirements for ESA eligibility clarified. 12. Inspection provisions modified to include option for weekly site inspections rather than biweekly inspections with follow up inspections after each rain event, and guidelines included for utility line installation, pipeline construction, and other linear construction activities. 13. Further clarification provided concerning stabilization requirements for project areas where construction has temporarily ceased. 14. Additional guidance and options provided for adjusting SWPPP to address applicable water quality standards after authorization. 15. Clarification added that coverage under an alternative NPDES permit qualifies as a basis for submitting an NOT. 16. Definitions added for the following terms: i. `` Arid Areas''; ii. `` Eligible''; iii. `` Federal Facility''; iv. `` Indian Country''; v. `` Large Construction Activity''; vi. `` New Project''; vii. `` Ongoing Project''; viii. `` Permitting Authority''; ix. `` Project Area''; x. `` Receiving Water''; xi. `` Semi Arid Areas''; xii. `` Site''; xiii. `` Small Construction Activity''; xiv. `` Storm Water Discharge Related Activity''; xv. `` Total Maximum Daily Load'' or `` TMDL''; and xvi. `` Wetland''. 17. Standard conditions revised consistent with 40 CFR 122.41.

C. Summary of Terms and Conditions of Final General Permit 1. Discharges Covered Operators of large and small construction activities within the areas listed below may be eligible to obtain coverage under this permit for allowable storm water and non storm water discharges: Region 1: The State of New Hampshire; Indian Country in the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut; and Federal facilities in Vermont. ( State Coastal Zone Management Act ( CZMA) certification was not received from Massachusetts in time for that state to be VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 39 Jun 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM 01JYN1 39089 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2003 / Notices included in this permit. As such, large construction activities in Massachusetts covered under the 1998 CGP will continue to be covered under that permit. EPA will reissue the CGP for Massachusetts for large and small construction activities at a later date, and will include any state specific modifications or additions as part of the State's CZMA certification process.) Region 2: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Indian Country in the State of New York. Region 3: District of Columbia; and Federal facilities in the State of Delaware. Region 5: Indian Country in the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, except the Sokaogon Chippewa ( Mole Lake) Community. Region 6: The State of New Mexico; Indian Country in the States of Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico ( except Navajo Reservation Lands ( see Region 9) and Ute Mountain Reservation Lands ( see Region 8)); discharges in the State of Oklahoma that are not under the authority of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, including activities associated with oil and gas exploration, drilling, operations, and pipelines ( includes SIC Groups 13 and 46, and SIC codes 492 and 5171), and point source discharges associated with agricultural production, services, and silviculture ( includes SIC Groups 01, 02, 07, 08, 09); and discharges in the State of Texas that are not under the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( formerly the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission), including activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil or gas or geothermal resources, including transportation of crude oil or natural gas by pipeline. Region 7: Indian Country in the States of Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska ( except Pine Ridge Reservation Lands ( see Region 8)). Region 8: Federal facilities in Colorado; Indian Country in Colorado ( as well as the portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico), Montana, North Dakota ( as well as that portion of the Standing Rock Reservation located in South Dakota and excluding the portion of the lands within the former boundaries of the Lake Traverse Reservation, which is covered under the permit for areas of South Dakota), South Dakota ( as well as the portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located in Nebraska and the portion of the lands within the former boundaries of the Lake Traverse Reservation located in North Dakota and excluding the Standing Rock Reservation which is covered under the permit for areas of North Dakota), Utah ( except Goshute and Navajo Reservation lands ( see Region 9)), and Wyoming. Region 9: The Islands of American Samoa and Guam, Johnston Atoll, Midway/ Wake Islands and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Indian Country in Arizona ( as well as Navajo Reservation lands in New Mexico and Utah), California, and Nevada ( as well as the Duck Valley Reservation in Idaho, the Fort McDermitt Reservation in Oregon, and the Goshute Reservation in Utah). Region 10: The States of Alaska and Idaho; Indian Country in Alaska, Idaho ( except Duck Valley Reservation ( see Region 9)), Washington, and Oregon ( except for Fort McDermitt Reservation ( see Region 9)); and Federal facilities in Washington.

2. Limitations on Coverage The final general permit includes a number of eligibility restrictions including: post construction discharges; discharges which may adversely affect endangered or threatened species and critical habitat; discharges which may cause or contribute to excursions above any applicable water quality standards; and discharges that are inconsistent with applicable approved TMDLs. Construction operators that do not meet the eligibility requirements of the general permit will be required to submit an individual permit application or seek coverage under any alternate general permit, if available. Eligibility restrictions for discharges that adversely affect historic properties have been reserved pending ongoing discussions with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officers, and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. EPA may modify the permit at a later date based on those discussions.

3. Deadlines and Permit Application Process To obtain discharge authorization under the final general permit, dischargers are required to submit an NOI requesting discharge authorization. The NOI must include basic information about the construction project ( e. g., operator name, site name, and site address) and certification that a storm water pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) has been prepared for the site describing the best management practices that the discharger will implement to control pollutants in the discharges in accordance with the requirements of the CWA. NOI due dates are as follows: i. New Projects: The NOI must be submitted at least seven days prior to commencement of construction activities. ii. Permitted Ongoing Projects: If the operator previously received authorization to discharge for an ongoing project under the 1998 CGP, the NOI must be submitted within 90 days of the effective date of this permit, unless the permittee is eligible to submit a Notice of Termination ( NOT) before the 90th day, provided that the NOT is submitted in compliance with the permit requirements. Until authorized under this permit, the operator must comply with the terms and conditions of the 1998 CGP. iii. Unpermitted Ongoing Projects: Due to the lack of availability of this permit by the March 10, 2003 deadline for small construction activities to apply for permit coverage and by the February 17, 2003 expiration of the 1998 CGP for large construction activities, EPA anticipates that a number of otherwise regulated construction projects were left without the ability to obtain coverage under a valid general permit. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued a memorandum on March 7, 2003 making administrative or civil enforcement for these activities a low priority because a new CGP had not been promulgated, on the condition that affected operators implement an interim SWPPP and associated best management practices until the new permit is available. For this class of operators, which did not previously receive authorization to discharge for an ongoing project under the 1998 CGP, the NOI must be submitted within 90 days of the effective date of this permit, unless the permittee is eligible to submit a Notice of Termination ( NOT) before the 90th day. Until authorized under this permit, the operator must comply with an interim SWPPP consistent with the 1998 CGP.

4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans The final general permit requires that all operators covered by the permit develop and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is the principal means through which dischargers comply with the CWA's requirement to control pollutants in their discharges. All SWPPPs are required to be developed in accordance with sound engineering practices and developed specific to the site. These SWPPPs are required to be prepared prior to commencement of construction activities and then updated as appropriate. Specific elements to be addressed in the SWPPP include:

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 39 Jun 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM 01JYN1 39090 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2003 / Notices i. Pollution Prevention Plan Contents: Site and Activity Description, ii. Pollution Prevention Plan Contents: Controls to Reduce Pollutants, iii. Non Storm Water Discharge Management, iv. Maintenance of Controls, v. Documentation of Permit Eligibility Related to Endangered Species, vi. Copy of Permit Requirements, vii. Applicable State, Tribal, or Local Programs, viii. Inspections, ix. Maintaining an Updated Plan, x. Signature, Plan Review and Making Plans Available, xi. Management Practices, and xii. Documentation of Permit Eligibility Related to Total Maximum Daily Loads.

5. Permit Appeal Procedures Within 120 days following notice of EPA's final decision for the general permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any interested person may appeal the permit in the Federal Court of Appeals in accordance with Section 509( b)( 1) of the CWA. Persons affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an individual permit as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 ( and authorized at 40 CFR 122.28), and then petition the Environmental Appeals Board to review any conditions of the individual permit ( 40 CFR 124.19 as modified on May 15, 2000, 65 FR 30886).

III. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. OMB has exempted review of NPDES general permits under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

IV. 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 Procedures 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. Issuance of an NPDES general permit is not subject to rulemaking requirements, under APA section 553 or any other law, and is thus not subject to the RFA requirements. The APA defines two broad, mutually exclusive categories of agency action   ` ` rules'' and `` orders.'' Its definition of `` rule'' encompasses `` an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency * * *'' APA section 551( 4). Its definition of `` order'' is residual: `` a final disposition * * * of an agency in a matter other than rule making but including licensing.'' APA section 551( 6) ( emphasis added). The APA defines `` license'' to `` include * * * an agency permit * * *'' APA section 551( 8). The APA thus categorizes a permit as an order, which by the APA's definition is not a rule. Section 553 of the APA establishes `` rule making'' requirements. The APA defines `` rule making'' as `` the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.'' APA section 551( 5). By its terms, then, section 553 applies only to `` rules'' and not also to `` orders,'' which include permits.

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their `` regulatory actions'' on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. UMRA uses the term `` regulatory actions'' to refer to regulations. ( See, e. g., UMRA section 201, `` Each agency shall * * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * ( other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law)'' ( emphasis added)). UMRA section 102 defines `` regulation'' by reference to 2 U. S. C. 658 which in turn defines `` regulation'' and `` rule'' by reference to section 601( 2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA). That section of the RFA defines `` rule'' as `` any rule for which the agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 553( b) of ( the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA)), or any other law. * * *'' As discussed in the RFA section of this notice, NPDES general permits are not `` rules'' under the APA and thus not subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a requirement under the CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the CWA section 402( a) requirement to provide `` an opportunity for a hearing.'' Thus, NPDES general permits are not `` rules'' for RFA or UMRA purposes.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities resulting from the final construction general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements of the construction general permit for large construction activities have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) ( OMB Control No. 2040   0188) in previous submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Information collection requirements of the construction general permit for small construction activities were submitted to OMB ( OMB Control No. 2040   0211) for review and approval and will be published in a separate Federal Register Notice.

1. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 24, 2003. Linda M. Murphy, Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region 1. 2. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 23, 2003. Kevin Bricke, Acting Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region 2. 3. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 20, 2003. Carlos E. O'Neill, Acting Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, Region 2. 4. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 23, 2003. Jon M. Capacasa,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 39 Jun 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM 01JYN1 39091 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2003 / Notices Director, Water Protection Division, Region 3. 5. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 23, 2003. Rebecca L. Harrvey, Chief, NPDES Programs Branch, Region 5. 6. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 20, 2003. Miguel I. Flores, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6. 7. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 23, 2003. Leo J. Alderman, Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division, Region 7. 8. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 23, 2003. Stephen S. Tuber, Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Region 8. 9. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 20, 2003. Nancy Woo, Acting Director, Water Division, Region 9. 10. Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq. Dated: June 23, 2003. Randall F. Smith, Director, Office of Water, Region 10. [ FR Doc. 03   16575 Filed 6   26   03; 2: 11 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P EXPORT IMPORT BANK Sunshine Act Meeting ACTION: Notice of a partially open meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export Import Bank of the United States.

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, July 3, 2003 at 9: 30 a. m. The meeting will be held at Ex Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEM: Transportation Security Export Program.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public participation for Item No. 1 only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact: Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 ( Telephone No. 202   565   3957).

Peter B. Saba, General Counsel. [ FR Doc. 03   16729 Filed 6   27   03; 2: 04 pm]

BILLING CODE 6690   01   M FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 ( 12 U. S. C. 1841 et seq.) ( BHC Act), Regulation Y ( 12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/ or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act ( 12 U. S. C. 1842( c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act ( 12 U. S. C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at www. ffiec. gov/ nic/. Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 25, 2003. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia ( Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105 1521: 1. Pebblespring Holding Company, Berwyn, Pennsylvania; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Eagle National Bank, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta ( Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303: 1. The Desjardins Group, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Desjardins FSB Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; La Caisse centrale Desjardins de Quebec, Montreal, Canada; Federation de caisses Desjardins du Quebec, Levis, Quebec, Canada; to become bank holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Desjardins Bank, N. A., Hallandale, Florida, upon is conversion from a federal savings bank, Desjardins Federal Savings Bank, Hallandale, Florida. C. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis ( Richard M. Todd, Vice President and Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480 0291: 1. Allied Equity Holding Corporation, Denver, Colorado; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Western Dakota Holding Company, Timber Lake, South Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire Western Dakota Bank, Timber Lake, South Dakota. D. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas ( W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201 2272: 1. Industry Bancshares, Inc., Industry, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Fayetteville Bancshares, Inc., Fayetteville, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Fayetteville Bank, Fayetteville, Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 25, 2003. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [ FR Doc. 03   16526 Filed 6   30   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210   01   S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act ( 12 U. S. C. 1843) ( BHC Act) and Regulation Y ( 12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y ( 12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 39 Jun 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01JYN1. SGM 01JYN1


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 03/05/2008 05:55 PM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: schedule for upcoming interagency briefings

I'm not ignoring you Janet, just living on the phone these day --

I will think on this and get back to you in the morning -- right now the

interagency folks are asking me to resend chapters that were caught by

their email server size constraints and I'm trying to address those

issues first ... Aaaarrrrggghhhh!!

I think you for your help to keep things moving forward efficiently and

productively.

h

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:23 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: schedule for upcoming interagency briefings

Heidi,

We have about 7 days before the deadline for the O3 RIA (not that

anyone's counting) and we have a few briefings we might want to get on

the calendar.  We have yet to brief the interagency group on the

extrapolated cost method and results of that analysis.  We would also be

happy to brief the interagency group on total costs, total benefits, and

net benefits (executive summary level RIA results).  Of these two

briefings, would you like for us to give both of them?  Another

possibility is to skip the details on cost, and go straight for the

high-level executive summary with details in an appendix for reference.

Which would be your preference?

-Janet

 _______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: July 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 41434-41435]
[DOCID:fr21jy06-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530; FRL-8201-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application for Reference or Equivalent Method
Determination; EPA ICR No. 0559.09 OMB Control No. 2080-0005

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 21,
2006

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2005-0530, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), by e-mail to Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) Docket<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert W. Vanderpool, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Human Exposure and Atmospheric
Sciences Division, Process Modeling Research Branch, Mail Drop D205-03,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16771), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted
to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of

Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/
DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office of
Environmental Information Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Application for Reference and Equivalent Method
Determination.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0559.09; OMB Control No. 2080-0005.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: To determine compliance with the NAAQS, State air
monitoring agencies are required to use, in their air quality
monitoring networks, air monitoring methods that have been formally
designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 53. A manufacturer or seller of an air
monitoring method (e.g. an air monitoring sampler or analyzer) that
seeks to obtain such EPA designation of one of its products must carry
out prescribed tests of the method. The test results and other
information must then be submitted to the EPA in the form of an
application for a reference or equivalent method determination in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The EPA uses this information, under
the provisions of part 53, to determine whether the particular method
should be designated as either a reference or equivalent method. After
a method is designated, the applicant must also maintain records of the
names and mailing addresses of all ultimate purchasers of all analyzers
or samplers sold as designated methods under the method designation. If
the method designated is a method for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10-2.5),
the applicant must also submit a checklist signed by an ISO-certified
auditor to indicate that the samplers or analyzers sold as part of the
designated method are manufactured in an ISO 9001-registered facility.
Also, an applicant must submit a minor application to seek approval for
any proposed modifications to previously designated methods.
    A response to this collection of information is voluntary, but it
is required to obtain the benefit of EPA designation under 40 CFR part
53. Submission of some information that is claimed by the applicant to
be confidential business information may be necessary to make a
reference or equivalent method determination. The confidentiality of
any submitted information identified as confidential business
information by the applicant will be protected in full accordance with
40 CFR 53.15 and all applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 341
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and requirements which have
subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State, local, or tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 22.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 7,492 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $650,494, includes $132,668 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 50 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the nature of the
proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
particulate matter.

    Dated: July 11, 2006.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-11606 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P