                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

No. 1:15-cv-00630-MSK-KLM

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS;			)
HEAL Utah;					)
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION	)
ASSOCIATION; and				)
SIERRA CLUB,				)
						)
		Plaintiffs,			)
						)
	v.					)
						)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL	)
PROTECTION AGENCY;			)
GINA McCARTHY, in her official capacity	)
as Administrator of the United States	)
Environmental Protection Agency;	and	)
SEAN McGRATH, in his official capacity as	)
Regional Administrator, United States	)
Environmental Protection Agency,		)
						)
		Defendants.			)
________________________________________________	)

                                CONSENT DECREE

	This Consent Decree ("Decree") is entered into by Plaintiffs WildEarth Guardians ("Guardians"), HEAL Utah, National Parks Conservation Association ("NPCA"), and Sierra Club and Defendants U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Administrator Gina McCarthy, and Regional Administrator Shaun McGrath (collectively "EPA").  Guardians, HEAL Utah, NPCA, Sierra Club, EPA, Administrator McCarthy, and Regional Administrator McGrath are described herein as the "Parties."

                                   RECITALS
	A.	Pursuant to the Clean Air Act ("Act"), each State must adopt a "State Implementation Plan" ("SIP") that includes enforceable emission limitations necessary to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") and to meet all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "Act").  42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).  The primary goal of a SIP is to explain what regulations, control measures, and programs the State will use to ensure that air quality standards are attained and maintained.  SIPs must be submitted to and approved by EPA.  32 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1), (k).
	B.	In 1977, Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 7491, entitled "Visibility protection for Federal Class I areas."  Congress declared as a national goal "the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution."  42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1).  Congress required EPA to promulgate regulations by 1979 to assure "reasonable progress" toward meeting the national goal identified above and compliance with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7491.  42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1).  The regulations require implementation plans for States in which a Class I area exists (and for States "the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in such Class I area) to include emission limits, compliance schedules, and "other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal."  42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2).  Pursuant to EPA's regional haze regulations, States were required to submit regional haze SIPs to EPA for approval by December 17, 2007.  40 C.F.R. § 51.308(b).
	C.	On May 26, 2011, Utah submitted a SIP revision to EPA that addressed regional haze SIP requirements.  On October 30, 2012, EPA disapproved portions of Utah's SIP revision regarding the State's "best available retrofit technology" ("BART") determination for Units 1 and 2 of the Hunter power plant and Units 1 and 2 of the Huntingdon power plant. 77 Fed. Reg. 74,355 (Dec. 14, 2012).
	D.	Within two years after the EPA Administrator (a) finds that a State failed to make a required submission, (b) finds that a SIP or SIP revision submission does not satisfy statutory minimum criteria, or (c) disapproves a SIP in whole or in part, the Administrator is to promulgate a "Federal Implementation Plan" ("FIP"), unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates the FIP.  42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1).
	E.	EPA has not promulgated a regional haze FIP for the State of Utah.
	F.	On or about January 21, 2015, Guardians provided EPA with written notice of a claim that EPA had failed to promulgate a regional haze FIP for Utah; HEAL Utah submitted a similar claim on or about January 29, 2015.
	G.	On March 27, 2015, Guardians filed a "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Plaintiff Guardians states that it brought the Complaint pursuant to the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2), in that it alleges that the Administrator has not performed a non-discretionary duty to promulgate a regional haze FIP for Utah within the statutory time frame.
	H.	In its prayer for relief, Guardians requests (a) a declaratory judgment that EPA has violated the Act by failing to promulgate a regional haze FIP for Utah; (b) an injunction compelling EPA to promulgate a FIP by a time certain; (c) an order that the court retain jurisdiction until EPA has complied; and (d) an award of Guardians' costs of litigation.  Complaint at 9.
	I.	On March 31, 2015, Plaintiffs HEAL Utah, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club filed a "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," against the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Administrator McCarthy, and EPA Region VIII Administrator Shaun McGrath, in which they asserted the same claim and prayer for relief as asserted by Guardians in Guardians v. McCarthy.  HEAL Utah v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-00666 (D. Colo.) ("HEAL v. EPA").  The Guardians v. McCarthy and HEAL Utah v. EPA cases were consolidated into Guardians v. McCarthy on July 9, 2015.  The Court ordered that the HEAL Utah v. EPA action be dismissed and that all subsequent pleadings and other documents be filed under the 1:15-cv-00630-MSK-KLM case number.
	J.	The State of Utah and PacifiCorp have filed pending motions to intervene in both Guardians v. McCarthy and HEAL Utah v. EPA.  The Court denied the motions to intervene filed in the HEAL Utah v. EPA case without prejudice to refiling in the above-captioned matter.
	K.	On June 11, 2015, the State of Utah submitted a proposed revised regional haze SIP to EPA for approval.
	L.	On July 22, 205, pursuant to the Court's order, Guardians, HEAL Utah, NPCA, and Sierra Club filed a "Consolidated Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" ("Consolidated Complaint") in the consolidated cases.  The Consolidated Complaint included the same claim for relief and prayer for relief as set forth in the Guardians v. McCarthy and HEAL Utah v. EPA complaints.
	M.	The Parties wish to effectuate a settlement of this case without expensive and protracted litigation, and without a litigated resolution of any issue of law or fact.
	N.	The Parties consider this Decree to be an adequate and equitable resolution of the claims of this case and consent to entry of this Decree.
	O.	The Court, by entering this Decree, finds that this Decree is fair, reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with the Clean Air Act.
                              GENERAL PROVISIONS
	NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of testimony, without trial or determination of any issue of law or fact, and upon the consent of the Parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
	1.	This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the Consolidated Complaint and to order the relief contained in this Decree.  Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
	2.	The Parties shall not challenge the terms of this Decree or this Court's jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Decree in any formal administrative or judicial forum.  This Decree constitutes a complete and final resolution of all claims that have been asserted in the Guardians Complaint and in the HEAL Utah Complaint, and in the Consolidated Complaint.
	3.	This Decree shall become effective upon the date of its entry by the Court.  If for any reason the Court does not enter this Decree, the obligations set forth in this Decree are null and void.
	4.	On or before November 19, 2015, the appropriate EPA official will sign a notice proposing issuance of a FIP regarding those portions of the Utah SIP revision EPA previously disapproved, proposing approval of a new regional haze SIP revision submitted to EPA by the State of Utah before that date, or proposing conditional approval of a new regional haze SIP revision submitted to EPA by the State of Utah before that date.
	5.	On or before March 31, 2016, the appropriate EPA official will sign a notice of final action regarding the proposal referenced in Paragraph 4.
	6.	Within fifteen business days following the signature of the notice of a proposed and final rulemaking pursuant to Paragraphs 4 and 5 above, EPA shall submit the notice for review and publication by the Office of the Federal Register.
	7.	The United States agrees to pay Guardians as full settlement for all claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in Guardians v. McCarthy and the consolidated case, through the date of lodging this Consent Decree, under any authority, the sum of $4,000.00, as soon as reasonably practicable following entry of this Consent Decree, by electronic funds transfer to a bank account identified by Guardians.  Guardians agrees to accept $4,000.00 in full satisfaction of any and all claims for costs and attorneys' fees with respect to Guardians v. McCarthy and the consolidated case, except that Guardians reserves the right to seek costs and fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d) for any additional work performed after the lodging of this Consent Decree, including costs and attorneys' fees for any extensions of the deadline set forth in Paragraphs 4 or 5 requested by EPA and costs and attorneys' fees for enforcement of the Consent Decree in the future.  Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed as an admission or concession by EPA that Guardians is entitled to or eligible for recovery of any costs or attorneys' fees, and EPA reserves all defenses with respect to any future cost or fee claim.  The amount of attorneys' fees or rates under this Paragraph shall have no precedential value in any future fee claim.
	8.	The United States agrees to pay HEAL Utah, NPCA, and Sierra Club, as full settlement for all claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in HEAL UTAH v. EPA and the consolidated case, through the date of lodging this Consent Decree, under any authority, the sum of $22,525.00, as soon as reasonably practicable following entry of this Consent Decree, by electronic funds transfer to a bank account identified by HEAL Utah, NPCA, and Sierra Club.  HEAL Utah, NPCA, and Sierra Club agree to accept $22,525.00 in full satisfaction of any and all claims for costs and attorneys' fees with respect to HEAL Utah v. EPA and the consolidated case, except that HEAL Utah, NPCA, and Sierra Club reserve the right to seek costs and fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d) for any additional work performed after the lodging of this Consent Decree, including costs and attorneys' fees for any extensions of the deadline set forth in Paragraphs 4 or 5 requested by EPA and costs and attorneys' fees for enforcement of the Consent Decree in the future.  Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed as an admission or concession by EPA that HEAL Utah, NPCA, or Sierra Club is entitled to or eligible for recovery of any costs or attorneys' fees, and EPA reserves all defenses with respect to any future cost or fee claim.  The amount of attorneys' fees or rates under this Paragraph shall have no precedential value in any future fee claim.
	9.	The Parties do not anticipate any need to extend the deadlines set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5.   Such deadlines may be extended, however, by written stipulation executed by the Parties and filed with the Court.  Any other request for an extension of the deadline in Paragraphs 4 or 5 may be approved by the Court upon motion made by any Party to this Decree for good cause shown and upon consideration of any response and any reply.  Any other provision of this Decree may also be modified by the Court for good cause shown and upon consideration of any response by a non-moving Party and any reply.
	10.	If an EPA lapse in appropriations occurs within 120 days prior to the deadline set forth in Paragraph 4 or in Paragraph 5, or after the deadline set forth in Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 5 but before the deadline in Paragraph 6, that deadline shall be extended automatically one day for each day of the lapse in appropriations.  Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude EPA from seeking an additional extension, either by stipulation or by Court order, pursuant to the procedures of Paragraph 7.
	11.	Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit or modify any discretion accorded EPA by the Act or by general principles of administrative law in taking the action that is the subject of this Decree, including the discretion to alter, amend, or revise any responses or final actions contemplated by this Decree.  EPA's obligation to perform the actions specified by Paragraphs 4 and 5 by the time specified therein does not constitute a limitation or modification of EPA's discretion within the meaning of this Paragraph.
	12.	Nothing in this Decree shall be construed as an admission of any issue of fact or law nor to waive or limit any claim, remedy, or defense, on any grounds, related to any final action EPA may take with respect to the EPA actions identified in Paragraphs 4 or 5.
	13.	Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to confer upon the District Court jurisdiction to review any final decision made by EPA pursuant to this Decree. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to confer upon the District Court jurisdiction to review any issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals pursuant to the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7607(b)(1), 7661d.  Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to waive any claims, remedies, or defenses the Parties may have under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).
	14.	The Parties recognize and acknowledge that the obligations imposed upon EPA under this Decree can only be undertaken using appropriated funds legally available for such purpose.  No provision of this Decree shall be interpreted or constitute a commitment or requirement that EPA obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or any other applicable provision of law.
	15.	Any notices required or provided for by this Decree shall be made in writing and sent via email to the following:

		For Guardians:
		Samantha Ruscavage-Barz
		WildEarth Guardians
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

		For HEAL Utah, National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra 				Club:

		Jenny K. Harbine
		EARTHJUSTICE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
		John Barth
		Attorney at Law
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
		For EPA:

		Daniel Pinkston
		Environmental Defense Section
		U.S. Dept. of Justice
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>		Elyana Sutin
		Office of Regional Counsel
		EPA Region 8
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	16.	In the event of a dispute among the Parties concerning the interpretation, implementation, or enforcement of any aspect of this Decree, the disputing Party shall provide the other Party with a written notice outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting informal negotiations.  The Parties shall meet and confer in order to attempt to resolve the dispute.  If the Parties cannot reach an agreed-upon resolution within ten business days after receipt of the notice, any Party may move the Court to resolve the dispute.
	17.	No motion or other proceeding seeking to enforce this Decree shall be properly filed unless the Party seeking to enforce this Decree has first exhausted the procedure set forth in Paragraph 16.
	18.	The Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine and effectuate compliance with this Decree and to resolve any disputes thereunder.  After EPA's obligations under Paragraphs 4 and 5 have been completed, this Decree shall be terminated.  The Parties may either jointly notify the Court that the Decree should be terminated and the case dismissed, or EPA may notify the Court by motion, and Guardians and/or the HEAL Plaintiffs shall have twenty days to respond to such motion.
	19.	The Parties agree and acknowledge that final approval and entry of this proposed Decree are subject to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g), which provides that notice of this proposed Decree shall be given to the public and that the public shall have a reasonable opportunity to comment.  EPA will promptly deliver a public notice of this Decree to the Office of the Federal Register for publication and public comment after lodging this Decree with the Court.  After this Decree has undergone an opportunity for notice and comment, EPA's Administrator and/or the United States Attorney General, as appropriate, shall promptly consider any written comments in determining whether to withdraw or withhold consent to this Decree, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g).    If the Administrator and/or the Attorney General elects not to withdraw or withhold consent to this Decree, the Parties shall promptly file a motion that requests the Court to enter this Decree. If the Administrator and/or Attorney General elects to withdraw or withhold consent to this Decree pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7613(g), EPA shall promptly advise Plaintiffs.
	20.	It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that this Decree was jointly drafted by the Parties and that any and all rules of construction to the effect that ambiguity is construed against the drafting party shall be inapplicable in any dispute concerning the terms, meaning, or interpretation of this Decree.
	21.	The undersigned representatives of each Party certify that they are fully authorized by the Party they represent to bind that Party to the terms of this Decree.
	SO ORDERED this ___ day of ______________________ 2015.

						________________________________________________
						United States District Judge

						SO AGREED:

						FOR WILDEARTH GUARDIANS:

Dated:________, 2015				_______________________________________________
						WildEarth Guardians
						516 Alto Street
						Santa Fe, NM  87501
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

						FOR HEAL UTAH, NATIONAL PARKS 							CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, AND 							SIERRA CLUB:

Dated:_______, 2015				_______________________________________________
						EARTHJUSTICE
						315 East Main Street
						Bozeman, MT  59715
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Dated:_______, 2015				______________________________________________
						Attorney at Law
						P.O. Box 409
						Hygiene, CO  80533
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
						FOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 							PROTECTION AGENCY, ADMINISTRATOR 							GINA McCARTHY, AND REGIONAL 								ADMINISTRATOR SHAUN McGRATH:

						JOHN C. CRUDEN
						Assistant Attorney General
						Environment and Natural Resources 								Division

Dated:	_______, 2015			By:	_______________________________________________
						DANIEL PINKSTON
						Environmental Defense Section
						Environment and Natural Resources
							Division
						U.S. Dept. of Justice
						999 18[th] Street
						South Terrace, Suite 370
						Denver, Colorado  80202
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58630-58633]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25247]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84591; File No. SR-PEARL-2018-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

November 14, 2018.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 October 31, 2018, MIAX
PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees
set forth in Section 1(a) of the Fee Schedule to decrease the ``Taker''
fee in Tiers 1-3 assessable to Priority Customers \3\ orders for
options transactions in Non-Penny classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
100, including Interpretations and Policies .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all
market participants which are based upon the total monthly volume
executed by the Member \4\ on MIAX PEARL in the relevant, respective
origin type (not including Excluded Contracts) \5\ expressed as a
percentage of TCV.\6\ In addition, the per contract transaction rebates
and fees are applied retroactively to all eligible volume for that
origin type once the respective threshold tier (``Tier'') has been
reached by the Member. The Exchange aggregates the volume of Members
and their Affiliates.\7\ Members that place resting liquidity, i.e.,
orders resting on the book of the MIAX PEARL System,\8\ are paid the
specified ``maker'' rebate (each a ``Maker''), and Members that execute
against resting liquidity are assessed the specified ``taker'' fee
(each a ``Taker''). For opening transactions and ABBO uncrossing
transactions, per contract transaction rebates and fees are waived for
all market participants. Finally, Members are assessed lower
transaction fees and receive lower rebates for order executions in
standard option classes in the Penny Pilot Program \9\ (``Penny
classes'') than for order executions in standard option classes which
are not in the Penny Pilot Program (``Non-Penny classes''), where
Members are assessed higher transaction fees and receive higher
rebates. Transaction rebates and fees in Section 1(a) of the Fee
Schedule are currently assessed for Priority Customer orders according
to the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is
registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of the Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the Definitions Section of
the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an away
market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \6\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX PEARL for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period time in which the Exchange experiences an
``Exchange System Disruption'' (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine (as defined below)). The term Exchange
System Disruption, which is defined in the Definitions section of
the Fee Schedule, means an outage of a Matching Engine or collective
Matching Engines for a period of two consecutive hours or more,
during trading hours. The term Matching Engine, which is also
defined in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule, is a part of
the MIAX PEARL electronic system that processes options orders and
trades on a symbol-by-symbol basis. Some Matching Engines will
process option classes with multiple root symbols, and other
Matching Engines may be dedicated to one single option root symbol
(for example, options on SPY may be processed by one single Matching
Engine that is dedicated only to SPY). A particular root symbol may
only be assigned to a single designated Matching Engine. A
particular root symbol may not be assigned to multiple Matching
Engines. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
to select two consecutive hours as the amount of time necessary to
constitute an Exchange System Disruption, as two hours equates to
approximately 1.4% of available trading time per month. The Exchange
notes that the term ``Exchange System Disruption'' and its meaning
have no applicability outside of the Fee Schedule, as it is used
solely for purposes of calculating volume for the threshold tiers in
the Fee Schedule. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \7\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least
75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's
Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX PEARL Market
Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation based
upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by an EEM
and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who does not otherwise have a
corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX PEARL
Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX PEARL Market Maker,
pursuant to the process described in the Fee Schedule. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79778 (January 12,
2017), 82 FR 6662 (January 19, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2016-01).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for Penny classes    Per contract rebates/
                                                                                ------------------------------------------------   fees for Non-Penny
                  Origin                     Tier          Volume criteria                                                                classes
                                                                                Maker      Taker *    SPY taker   QQQ, IWM, -----------------------
                                                                                VXX taker     Maker       Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer.........................      1   0.00%-0.10%.................     ($0.25)       $0.48       $0.43       $0.47     ($0.85)       $0.87
                                                2   Above 0.10%-0.35%...........      (0.40)        0.46        0.43        0.46      (0.95)        0.86
                                                3   Above 0.35%-0.50%...........      (0.45)        0.44        0.42        0.44      (1.00)        0.85
                                                4   Above 0.50%-0.75%...........      (0.52)        0.44        0.41        0.43      (1.03)        0.84
                                                5   Above 0.75%-1.25%...........      (0.53)        0.44        0.40        0.42      (1.04)        0.84
                                                6   Above 1.25%.................      (0.53)        0.43        0.38        0.40      (1.04)        0.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all Penny Classes other than SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX.

    The Exchange proposes to decrease the Taker fee for Priority
Customer orders for options in Non-Penny classes in Tier 1 from $0.87
to $0.84, in Tier 2 from $0.86 to $0.84 and in Tier 3 from $0.85 to
$0.84. The purpose of decreasing the specified Taker fees for Priority
Customer orders for options in Non-Penny classes is for business and
competitive reasons to attract greater Priority Customer order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that reducing the Taker fees for
Priority Customer orders for options in Non-Penny classes in Tiers 1-3
to a $0.84 per contract fee, will incentivize Members to send greater
Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange due to favorable pricing
for this liquidity type.
    With all proposed changes, Section (a) of the Fee Schedule for
Priority Customer orders shall be the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract rebates/fees for Penny classes    Per contract rebates/
                                                                                ------------------------------------------------   fees for Non-Penny
                  Origin                     Tier          Volume criteria                                                                classes
                                                                                Maker      Taker *    SPY taker   QQQ, IWM, -----------------------
                                                                                VXX taker     Maker       Taker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer.........................      1   0.00%-0.10%.................     ($0.25)       $0.48       $0.43       $0.47     ($0.85)       $0.84
                                                2   Above 0.10%-0.35%...........      (0.40)        0.46        0.43        0.46      (0.95)        0.84
                                                3   Above 0.35%-0.50%...........      (0.45)        0.44        0.42        0.44      (1.00)        0.84
                                                4   Above 0.50%-0.75%...........      (0.52)        0.44        0.41        0.43      (1.03)        0.84
                                                5   Above 0.75%-1.25%...........      (0.53)        0.44        0.40        0.42      (1.04)        0.84
                                                6   Above 1.25%.................      (0.53)        0.43        0.38        0.40      (1.04)        0.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all Penny Classes other than SPY, QQQ, IWM, and VXX.

    The proposed change is scheduled to become operative November 1,
2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Taker fee decrease for Priority Customer orders for
options in Non-Penny classes in Tiers 1-3 is reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory, because all Priority Customer orders are
subject to the same Taker fees and access to the Exchange is offered on
terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange initially set
its Taker fees at the various volume levels based upon business
determinations and an analysis of current Taker fees and volume levels
at other exchanges. For competitive and business reasons, the Exchange
believes that lower Taker fees assessable to Priority Customer
transactions in Non-Penny classes in Tiers 1-3 will encourage Members
to execute more volume in Non-Penny classes on behalf of Priority
Customers since they will be assessed reduced fees. The Exchange
believes for these reasons that offering the reduced Taker fees for
Priority Customer transactions in Non-Penny classes in Tiers 1-3 is
equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory, and thus
consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to reduce Taker fees
assessable to transactions in options in Non-Penny classes and not to
reduce Taker fees for transactions in options in Penny classes is
consistent with other options markets that also assess different
transaction fees for options in Non-Penny classes as compared to Penny
classes. The Exchange believes that establishing different pricing for
options in Non-Penny classes and Penny classes is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because options in Penny
classes are generally more liquid as compared to Non-Penny classes.
Additionally, other competing options exchanges differentiate pricing
in a similar manner today.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Nasdaq PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule, Section II; NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule, Section I; Cboe Exchange, Inc., Fee
Schedule, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Priority Customer
orders than to orders from origin types that are not Priority Customer.
A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants on the
Exchange whose behavior is substantially similar to that of market
professionals, including non-Priority Customers, MIAX PEARL Market
Makers, Firms, and Broker-Dealers, who will generally submit a higher
number of orders (many of which do not result in executions) than
Priority Customers.
    Furthermore, the proposed decrease to the Taker fees in Non-Penny
classes for Priority Customer transactions in Tiers 1-3 promotes just
and equitable principles of trade, fosters cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and
protects investors and the public interest because the proposed
decrease in the fees will encourage Members to send more orders to the
Exchange even if it is an order which takes liquidity since they will
be assessed a reduced Taker fee in Tiers 1-3. To the extent that
Priority Customer order flow in Non-Penny classes is increased by the
proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the
opportunity to trade on the Exchange, including sending more orders
which will have the potential to be assessed lower fees and higher
rebates. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all
Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads.

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

    MIAX PEARL 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. The proposed Taker fee
decreases are intended to encourage liquidity. The proposed Taker fees
should enable the

Exchange to attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges
which do assess higher Taker fees, thereby adding liquidity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Chapter XV Options Pricing,
Sec. 2; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Fees Schedule, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and fees
to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner that encourages market participants to continue to provide
liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2018-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2018-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2018-22 and should be submitted on
or before December 11, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25247 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8804-8808]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3353]

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0019]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision and Approval
of Information Collection; Comments Requested

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments
on a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve
the revision and amendment of a previously approved Information
Collection Request (OMB Control  2105-0563) in accordance with
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
13, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The previous approval granted the Department of Transportation
authority to collect information involving National Infrastructure
Investments or ``TIGER II'' Discretionary Grants pursuant to Title I of
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for 2010 (the ``FY 201 Appropriations Act''). The
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (``OST'') is referring to
these grants as ``TIGER II Discretionary Grants.'' The original
collection of information was necessary in order to receive
applications for grant funds pursuant to the Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010
(``FY 2010 Appropriations Act''), Title I--Department of
Transportation, Office of the Secretary, National Infrastructure
Investments, Public Law 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034. The purpose of the
TIGER II Discretionary Grants program is to advance projects that will
have a significant impact on the Nation, Metropolitan area or a region.
    This revision revises the original request to include an additional
information collection. The additional information to be collected will
be used to, and is necessary to, evaluate the effectiveness of projects
that have been awarded grant funds and to monitor project financial
conditions and project progress in support of the Supplemental
Discretionary Grants for Capital Investments in Surface Transportation
Infrastructure, referred to by the Department as ``Grants for
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery'', or ``TIGER''
Discretionary Grants program authorized and implemented pursuant to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the ``Recovery Act'')
(OMB Control Number: 2105-0560) and the grants for National
Infrastructure Investments under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act or
TIGER II'' Discretionary Grants. The purposes of the TIGER and TIGER II
Discretionary Grant programs include promoting economic recovery and
supporting projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2011-0019] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mariner, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: National Infrastructure Investments Grant Program or ``TIGER
II Discretionary Grants''
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0563.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Revision of an information collection.
    Expected Number of Respondents: 126.
    Frequency: Quarterly, and Yearly.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 8 hours for each Quarterly
Progress and Monitoring Report; 8 hours for each Annual Budget Review;
8 hours for each Quarterly Performance Measurement Report.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 9,072 hours.
    Abstract: On February 17, 2009, the President of the United States
signed the Recovery Act to, among other purposes, (1) preserve and
create jobs and promote economic recovery, (2) invest in transportation
infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits, and (3)
assist those most affected by the current economic downturn. The
Recovery Act appropriated $1.5 billion of discretionary grant funds to
be awarded by the Department of Transportation for capital investments
in surface transportation infrastructure. The Department refers to
these grants as ``Grants for Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery'' or ``TIGER'' Discretionary Grants. Funding for 51
projects totaling nearly $1.5 billion under the TIGER program was
announced on February 17, 2010. Projects were selected based on their
alignment with the selection criteria specified in the Federal Register
notice for the TIGER Discretionary Grant program. On December 16, 2009
the President signed the FY 2010 Appropriations Act. The FY 2010
Appropriations Act appropriated $600 million for National
Infrastructure Investments using language that is very similar, but not
identical to the language in the Recovery Act authorizing the TIGER
Discretionary Grants. The Department is referring to the grants for
National Infrastructure Investments as TIGER II Discretionary Grants.
Like the TIGER Discretionary Grants, TIGER II Discretionary Grants are
for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure and
are to be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a
significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
Funding for 75 projects totaling nearly $600 million under the TIGER II
program was announced on October 20, 2010. Projects were selected based
on their alignment with the selection criteria specified in the Federal
Register notice for the TIGER II Discretionary Grant program. As
announced in the Federal Register notices for each of the TIGER and
TIGER II Discretionary Grant programs, grantees are expected to provide
information to the Government so that the Government may monitor the
financial conditions and progress of projects, as well as the
effectiveness of projects using performance measurement metrics
negotiated between the grantees and the Government.
    This request revises the existing PRA clearance to cover additional
information from grantees that is necessary to negotiate the grant
agreements and to cover the reporting requirements agreed to by the
grant recipients of the TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant
programs. The reporting requirements are as follows:
    Grantees will submit reports on the financial condition of the
project and the project's progress. Grantees will submit progress
reports and the Federal Financial Report (SF-425) to the Government on
a quarterly basis, beginning on the 20th of the first month of the
calendar-year quarter following the execution of a grant agreement, and
on the 20th of the first month of each calendar-year quarter thereafter
until completion of the project. The initial quarterly report will
include a detailed description, and, where appropriate, drawings, of
the items funded.
    Grantees will also submit an Annual Budget Review and Program Plan
to the Government, via e-mail, 60 days prior to the end of each
Agreement year that they are receiving grant funds. The Annual Budget
Review and Program Plan will provide a detailed schedule of activities,
estimate of specific performance objectives, include forecasted
expenditures, and a schedule of milestones for the upcoming year. If
there is an actual or projected project cost increase, the Annual
Budget Review and Program Plan will include a written plan for
providing additional sources of funding to cover the project budget
shortfall or supporting documentation of committed funds to cover the
cost increase.
    This information will be used to monitor grantees' use of Federal
funds, ensuring accountability and financial transparency in the TIGER
and TIGER II Discretionary Grant programs.
    Grantees will also submit reports on the performance (or projected
performance) of the project using performance measures that the grantee
and the Government selected through negotiations. The grantees will
submit a Pre-project Report that will consist of current baseline data
for each of the performance measures specified in the Performance
Measurement Table in the grant agreement negotiated between the grantee
and the Government. The Pre-project Report will include a detailed
description of data sources, assumptions, variability, and the
estimated level of precision for each measure. The grantees will submit
quarterly Project Performance Measurement Reports to the Government for
each of the performance measures specified in the Performance
Measurement Table in the grant agreement negotiated between the grantee
and the Government. Grantees will submit reports at each of the
intervals identified for the duration of the time period specified in
the Performance Measurement Table in the grant agreement negotiated
between the grantee and the Government. The grantees will submit a
Project Outcomes Report after the project is completed that will
consist of a narrative discussion detailing project successes and/or
the influence of external factors on project expectations.
    Respondents will have the opportunity to submit the information
either electronically or by using fillable PDF, word processing or
spreadsheet files. This information will be used to evaluate and
compare projects and to monitor results that grant funds achieve,
ensuring that grant funds achieved the outcomes targeted by the TIGER
and TIGER II Discretionary Grant programs.
    The following is detailed information and instructions regarding
the specific reporting requirements for each report identified above:
    TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant program grantees will submit
a Project Progress and Monitoring Report

and the Federal Financial Report (SF-425) to the Government on a
quarterly basis. Grantees should use the following structure when
preparing the quarterly Project Progress and Monitoring Report.
     Project Progress and Monitoring Report
    [cir] Frequency: Quarterly (on the 20th of the first month of the
calendar quarter)
    [cir] Report covers: Previous quarter, along with a two-quarter
forecast.
    [cir] Start: Upon award of grant.
    [cir] End: Once construction is complete.
    [cir] Format/Fields and accompanying instructions (beyond project
ID information):
    1. Executive Summary.--A clear and concise summary of the current
status of the project, including identification of any major issues
that have an impact on the project's scope, budget, schedule, quality,
or safety, including:
     Current total project cost (forecast) vs. latest budget
vs. baseline budget. Include an explanation of the reasons for any
deviations from the approved budget.
     Current overall project completion percentage vs. latest
plan percentage.
     Any delays or exposures to milestone and final completion
dates. Include an explanation of the reasons for the delays and
exposures.
     A summary of the projected and actual dates for notices to
proceed for significant contracts, start of construction, start of
expenditure of TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant funds, and
project completion date. Include an explanation of the reasons for any
discrepancies from the corresponding project milestone dates included
in the Agreement.
     Any Federal obligations and/or TIFIA disbursements
occurring during the month versus planned obligations or disbursements.
     Any significant contracts advertised, awarded, or
completed.
     Any significant scope of work changes.
     Any significant items identified as having deficient
quality.
     Any significant safety issues.
     Any significant Federal issues such as environmental
compliance, Buy America/Buy American (whichever is applicable to this
Project), Davis Bacon Act Prevailing Wage requirements, etc.
    2. Project Activities and Deliverables.--(1) Highlighting the
project activities and deliverables occurring during the previous
quarter (reporting period), and (2) define the activities and
deliverables planned for the next two reporting periods. Activities and
deliverables to be reported on should include meetings, audits and
other reviews, design packages submitted, advertisements, awards,
construction submittals, construction completion milestones, submittals
related to Recovery Act requirements, media or Congressional inquiries,
value engineering/constructability reviews, and other items of
significance. The two reporting period ``look ahead schedule'' will
enable the Government to accommodate any activities requiring input or
assistance.
    3. Action Items/Outstanding Issues.--Drawing attention to, and
tracking the progress of, highly significant or sensitive issues
requiring action and direction in order to resolve. In general, issues
and administrative requirements that could have a significant or
adverse impact to the project's scope, budget, schedule, quality,
safety, and/or compliance with Federal requirements should be included.
Status, responsible person(s), and due dates should be included for
each action item/outstanding issue. Action items requiring action or
direction should be included in the quarterly status meeting agenda.
The action items/outstanding issues may be dropped from this section
upon full implementation of the remedial action, and upon no further
monitoring anticipated.
    4. Project Schedule.--An updated master program schedule reflecting
the current status of the program activities should be included in this
section. A Gantt (bar) type chart is probably the most appropriate for
quarterly reporting purposes, with the ultimate format to be agreed
upon between the grantee and the Government. It is imperative that the
master program schedule be integrated, i.e., the individual contract
milestones tied to each other, such that any delays occurring in one
activity will be reflected throughout the entire program schedule, with
a realistic completion date being reported. Narratives, tables, and/or
graphs should accompany the updated master program schedule, basically
detailing the current schedule status, delays and potential exposures,
and recovery efforts. The following information should also be
included:
     Current overall project completion percentage vs. latest
plan percentage.
     Completion percentages vs. latest plan percentages for
major activities such as right-of-way, major or critical design
contracts, major or critical construction contracts, and significant
force accounts or task orders. A schedule status description should
also be included for each of these major or critical elements.
     Any delays or potential exposures to milestone and final
completion dates. The delays and exposures should be quantified and
overall schedule impacts assessed. The reasons for the delays and
exposures should be explained, and initiatives being analyzed or
implemented in order to recover the schedule should be detailed.
    5. Project Cost.--An updated cost spreadsheet reflecting the
current forecasted cost vs. the latest approved budget vs. the baseline
budget should be included in this section. One way to track project
cost is to show: (1) Baseline Budget, (2) Latest Approved Budget, (3)
Current Forecasted Cost Estimate, (4) Expenditures or Commitments To
Date, and (5) Variance between Current Forecasted Cost and Latest
Approved Budget. Line items should include all significant cost
centers, such as prior costs, right-of-way, preliminary engineering,
environmental mitigation, general engineering consultant, section
design contracts, construction administration, utilities, construction
packages; force accounts/task orders, wrap-up insurance, construction
contingencies, management contingencies, and other contingencies. The
line items can be broken-up in enough detail such that specific areas
of cost change can be sufficiently tracked and future improvements made
to the overall cost estimating methodology. A Program Total line should
be included at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Narratives, tables, and/
or graphs should accompany the updated cost spreadsheet, basically
detailing the current cost status, reasons for cost deviations, impacts
of cost overruns, and efforts to mitigate cost overruns. The following
information should be provided:
     Reasons for each line item deviation from the approved
budget, impacts resulting from the deviations, and initiatives being
analyzed or implemented in order to recover any cost overruns.
     Transfer of costs to and from contingency line items, and
reasons supporting the transfers.
     Speculative cost changes that potentially may develop in
the future, a quantified dollar range for each potential cost change,
and the current status of the speculative change. Also, a comparison
analysis to the available contingency amounts should be included,
showing that reasonable and sufficient amounts of contingency remain to
keep the project within the latest approved budget.
     Detailed cost breakdown of the general engineering
consultant (GEC) services (if applicable), including such

line items as contract amounts, task orders issued (amounts), balance
remaining for tasks, and accrued (billable) costs.
     Federal obligations and/or TIFIA disbursements for the
project, compared to planned obligations and disbursements.
    6. Project Funding Status.--The purpose of this section is to
provide a status report on the non-TIGER and non-TIGER II Discretionary
Grant funds necessary to complete the project. This report section
should include a status update of any legislative approvals or other
actions necessary to provide the non-TIGER and non-TIGER II
Discretionary Grant funds to the project. Such approvals might include
legislative authority to charge user fees or set toll rates, or the
commitment of local funding revenues to the project. In the event that
there is an anticipated or actual project cost increase, the project
funding status section should include a report on the anticipated or
actual source of funds to cover the cost increase and any significant
issues identified with obtaining additional funding.
    7. Project Quality.--The purpose of this section is to: (1)
Summarize the Quality Assurance/Quality Control activities during the
previous month (reporting period), and (2) highlight any significant
items identified as being deficient in quality. Deficient items noted
should be accompanied by reasons and specifics concerning the
deficiencies, and corrective actions taken or planned. In addition, the
agency or firm responsible for the corrective action should be
documented. Planned corrective actions should then be included as
Action Items/Outstanding Issues.
    8. Federal Financial Report (SF-425).--The Federal Financial Report
(SF-425) (available at http://www.forms.gov/bgfPortal/docDetails.do?dId=15149) is a financial reporting form used throughout
the Federal Government Grant system. Grantees should complete this form
and attach it to each quarterly Project Progress and Monitoring Report.
    TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant program grantees will submit
an Annual Budget Review and Program Plan to the Government 60 days
prior to the end of each Agreement year that they are receiving grant
funds. Grantees should use the following structure when preparing the
Annual Budget Review Report.
     Annual Budget Review Report
    [cir] Frequency: Yearly (60 days before the end of the Agreement
year).
    [cir] Report covers: Upcoming Agreement year.
    [cir] Start: 60 days before first anniversary of grant award.
    [cir] End: Once construction is complete.
    [cir] Format/Fields and accompanying instructions (beyond project
ID information):
    1. Detailed Schedule of Activities.--An updated master program
schedule reflecting the current status of the program activities should
be included in this section. A Gantt (bar) type chart is probably the
most appropriate for annual reporting purposes.
    2. Estimate of Specific Performance Objectives.--This section will
discuss, what, if any performance objectives of the project will be
achieved over the course of the upcoming Agreement Year and note any
differences from the original project plan.
    3. Forecasted Expenditures.--This section will discuss financial
outlays that will occur in support of the project over the course of
the upcoming Agreement Year and note any differences from the original
project plan.
    4. Schedule of Milestones for the Upcoming Agreement Year.--This
section will discuss, what, if any project milestones will be achieved
over the course of the upcoming Agreement Year and the obligations
associated with each milestone, noting any differences from the
original project plan. If there are no proposed deviations from the
Approved Detailed Project Budget, the Annual Budget Review shall
contain a statement stating such. The grantee will meet with the
Government to discuss the Annual Budget Review and Program Plan. If
there is an actual or projected project cost increase, the annual
submittal should include a written plan for providing additional
sources of funding to cover the project budget shortfall or supporting
documentation of committed funds to cover the cost increase. To the
extent the annual budget update deviates from the approved project
budget by more than 10 percent, then work proposed under the Annual
Budget Review and Program Plan shall not commence until written
approval from the Government is received.
    TIGER and TIGER II Discretionary Grant program grantees will submit
Performance Measure Reports on the performance (or projected
performance) of the project using the performance measures that the
grantee and the Government selected through negations.
     Performance Measurement Reports
    [cir] Frequency: Quarterly (on the 20th of the first month of the
calendar quarter).
    [cir] Report covers: Previous quarter.
    [cir] Start: Once, upon award of grant; Quarterly, once
construction complete.
    [cir] End: At the end of agreed upon performance measurement
period.
    [cir] Format/Fields and accompanying instructions (beyond project
ID information):
    1. Performance Measures Narrative.--Including a detailed
description of data sources, assumptions, variability, and the
estimated level of precision for each measure.
    2. Performance Measures Spreadsheet.--Government and grantee will
agree on the format of the spreadsheet for each individual project.
Measures (to be negotiated between grantees and the Government,
individually) may include, but are not limited to: Average tons
handled/day; average daily gross ton-miles (GTM); average container
lifts per day (TEUs); containers transported on lines (TEUs); transit
passenger miles and hours of travel; transit passenger & non-passenger
counts; transit rider characteristics; average bike and or pedestrian
users at key locations; average daily traffic (ADT) and average daily
truck traffic (ADTT); average daily total train delay (minutes);
average daily total (all vehicles) vehicle delay at crossings; transit
service level; facility service level; average hourly (or peak & off-
peak) vehicle travel time; average hourly (or peak & off-peak) buffer
index; annual crash rates by type/severity; average slow order miles
and average daily delay minutes due to slow orders; bridge condition
(Sufficiency Rating); road closure/lost capacity time (lane-hours).
    3. [For final Report] Project Outcomes.--Detailing Project
successes and/or the influence of external factors on Project
expectations. Including an ex post examination of project effectiveness
in relation to the Pre-project Report baselines.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Office of the
Secretary's (OST) performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated
burden; (c) ways for OST to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of
the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request
for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 9, 2011.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT Paperwork Reduction Act Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-3353 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Memorandum To: Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1 From: Liz Strange, Stratus Consulting Inc.

cc: Tom Wall, Debbi Hart, and Lynne Tudor, U. S. EPA Date: 6/ 26/ 02 Subject: Responses to PG& E Questions about the § 316( b) Phase II Brayton Point Case Study.

This memorandum provides responses to questions about the § 316( b) Phase II Brayton Point Case Study that were submitted to EPA Region 1 by PG& E on 6/ 24/ 02. Questions are presented in italics followed by the corresponding response.

1. Entrainment loss data was collected at BPS from 1972 to 1985 for all species and 1992 present for winter flounder. Impingement data has been collected since 1972. Why did EPA choose to use 1974 1983 data only in their calculation of entrainment and impingement losses?

EPA restricted the Brayton Point case study analysis for the § 316( b) Phase II rulemaking to 1974 1983 because this period represented consistent operating characteristics and included the most comprehensive record by the facility of impingement and entrainment rates for most of the impacted species ( see Section F2.2 of Chapter F2 of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document, docket number 4 0003).

2. Numerous studies have shown that large numbers of organisms survive impingement ( Brayton Point Station, Hudson River and Delaware River Plants). Why did EPA assume 100% mortality for impinged organisms?

EPA used the impingement numbers provided in the Brayton Point § 316( b) documents available to EPA ( see the Part F of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document, docket number 4 0003 for a complete list of the data sources). If studies at Brayton Point indicate that these numbers should be adjusted in some way, please provide this information to EPA.

3. This request is in reference to a memorandum sent to Lynne Tudor and Tom Wall, U. S. EPA from Liz Strange, Bob Raucher, and Dave Cacela, Stratus Consulting Inc., 5/ 16/ 02, titled: Outline of § 316( b) Case Study Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment Data. Referenced in the Example section of the memorandum are the ` Input Data', ` Evaluation Method', and ` Results'. We have the ` Input Data' file ( DCN 4 1305; brayton. input. data. xls) used in the Brayton Point Station case study; we do not have the ` Evaluation Method', and ` Results' files. Stratus Consulting 6/ 26/ 02 Page 2 We would like to get copies of all spreadsheet and/ or program files associated with the ` Evaluation methods' and ` Results' portion of the analysis.

The discussion of evaluation methods and results in the 5/ 16/ 02 memo do not refer to any particular files, but rather to the general evaluation procedure ( see Chapter A5 of Part A of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document, docket number 4 0003). Computer programs used to execute the calculations discussed in Chapter A5 of the Case Study Document were not prepared for public release.

4. Related to request 3., we would like to get all files and/ or programs associated with the production foregone modeling calculations presented in Part A as we are having difficulty recreating the results reported in Chapter F3, given the information provided in the Part A and Part F.

The methods for calculating production foregone are provided in Chapter A5 of Part A of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document ( docket number 4 0003). The data used in these calculations are provided in the EXCEL workbook brayton. input. data. xls ( docket number 4 1305). Computer programs used to execute the calculations were not prepared for public release.

5. Specific questions on life history parameters:

a. The following species' life tables do not have a ` juvenile 1' stage: butterfish ( Table F1 6), silver hake ( Table F1 11), striped killifish ( Table F1 12), white perch ( Table F1 16). How did EPA account for post larval young of year mortality and weight for these species in the loss models ( i. e., the equivalent adult and foregone production models)?

( a) EPA used a value of 9.06 for the total mortality rate ( Z) for the juvenile stage of white perch. As a result of an inadvertent clerical error, this information is not in Table F1 16. The reported larval stage mortality rates for butterfish, silver hake, and striped killifish were actually the total mortality rates for the larval stage and the juvenile stage combined. EPA inadvertently omitted a footnote to those tables that mentions this feature. Composite mortality rates were used for butterfish and silver hake because they were deduced indirectly using the equilibrium population ( f a) method ( see Section A5 2.3 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document, docket number 4 0003). Rates for striped killifish were deduced by reference to available data for a closely related species ( mummichog).

b. The windowpane fishing rate of 1.6 ( Table F1 17) equates to an annual harvest rate of approximately 80% of each age fully recruited to the fishery each year. Why did EPA use this high fishing mortality rate for windowpane flounder? Stratus Consulting 6/ 26/ 02 Page 3 ( b) The value 1.6 for windowpane is the F target for the Southern New England Middle Atlantic region as reported by NOAA ( http:// www. nefsc. nmfs. gov/ sos/ spsyn/ fldrs/ window/). This rate represents the fishing mortality rate that is protective of the stock. As such, EPA considered this a conservative estimate of average fishing mortality for use in yield calculations.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32309-32310]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1999-D-0081]

Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products
for Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and
Patient Follow-up; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft document entitled ``Testing of Retroviral
Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for Replication Competent
Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Draft
Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance document provides sponsors
of retroviral vector-based human gene therapy products recommendations
regarding the testing for replication competent retrovirus (RCR) during
the manufacture of retroviral vector-based products, and during follow-
up monitoring of patients who have received retroviral vector-based
products. Recommendations include the identification and amount of
material to be tested, and general testing methods. In addition,
recommendations are provided on monitoring patients for evidence of
retroviral infection after administration of retroviral vector-based
gene therapy products. The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended
to supersede the document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Supplemental Guidance on Testing for Replication Competent Retrovirus
in Retroviral Vector Based Gene Therapy Products and During Follow-up
of Patients in Clinical Trials Using Retroviral Vectors,'' dated
November 2006. The draft guidance, when finalized, is also intended to
supplement the documents entitled ``Long Term Follow-Up After
Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products; Draft Guidance for
Industry'' and ``Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information for
Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug Applications; Draft
Guidance for Industry,'' when these draft guidance documents are
finalized.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by October 10, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for Written/Paper
Submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-1999-D-0081 for ``Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene
Therapy Products for Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product
Manufacture and Patient Follow-up; Draft Guidance for Industry.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by
mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Segal, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301,

Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled
``Testing of Retroviral Vector-Based Human Gene Therapy Products for
Replication Competent Retrovirus During Product Manufacture and Patient
Follow-up; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance document
provides sponsors of retroviral vector-based human gene therapy
products recommendations regarding the testing for RCR during the
manufacture of retroviral vector-based products, and during follow-up
monitoring of patients who have received retroviral vector-based
products. Recommendations are also provided for RCR testing during
manufacture, including identification and amount of material to be
tested, and general testing methods. In addition, recommendations are
provided on monitoring patients for evidence of retroviral infection
after administration of retroviral vector-based gene therapy products.
The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to supersede the
document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Supplemental Guidance on
Testing for Replication Competent Retrovirus in Retroviral Vector Based
Gene Therapy Products and During Follow-up of Patients in Clinical
Trials Using Retroviral Vectors,'' dated November 2006. The draft
guidance, when finalized, is also intended to supplement the ``Long
Term Follow-Up After Administration of Human Gene Therapy Products;
Draft Guidance for Industry'' and ``Chemistry, Manufacturing, and
Control Information for Human Gene Therapy Investigational New Drug
Applications; Draft Guidance for Industry,'' when these draft guidance
documents are finalized. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is announcing the availability of these other two draft
guidance documents.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on testing of
retroviral vector-based human gene therapy products for replication
competent retrovirus during product manufacture and patient follow-up.
It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on
FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This
guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The draft 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 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in 21
CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 5, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-14868 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42460-42461]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15143]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0691, FRL-10009-01-OLEM]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities (Renewal), EPA ICR No. 1935.07, OMB Control No.
2050-0182

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit the information collection request (ICR), Standardized Permit
for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (EPA ICR No. 1935.07,
OMB Control No. 2050-0182) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through March 31, 2023. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2018-0691, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method),
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov//dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gaines, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov. Materials can also be viewed at the Reading Room
located at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours
of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
holidays). The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Under the authority of sections 3004, 3005, 3008 and 3010
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, EPA
revised the RCRA hazardous waste permitting program to allow a
``standardized permit.'' The standardized permit is available to
facilities that generate hazardous waste and routinely manage the waste
on-site in non-thermal units such as tanks, containers, and containment
buildings. In addition, the standardized permit is available to
facilities that receive hazardous waste generated off-site by a
generator under the same ownership as the receiving facility, and then
store or non-thermally treat the hazardous waste in containers, tanks,
or containment buildings. The RCRA standardized permit consists of two
components: a uniform portion that is included in all cases, and a
supplemental portion that the Director of a regulatory agency includes
at his or her discretion. The uniform portion consists of terms and
conditions, relevant to the unit(s) at the permitted facility, and is
established on a national basis. The Director, at his or her
discretion, may also issue a supplemental portion on a case-by-case
basis. The supplemental portion imposes site-specific permit terms and
conditions that the Director determines necessary to institute
corrective action under section 264.101 (or state equivalent), or
otherwise necessary to protect human health and the environment. Owners
and operators have to comply with the terms and conditions in the
supplemental portion, in addition to those in the uniform portion.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are business or other for-profit.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary (40 CFR 270.275).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: 218 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $11,612 (per year), includes $525 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay
substantially the same.

    Dated: July 11, 2022.
Carolyn Hoskinson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2022-15143 Filed 7-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2535-2536]
[FR Doc No: 2010-750]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394; FRL-9103-7; EPA ICR No. 1569.07; OMB Control No.
2040-0153]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Approval of State Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (Renewal)

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 February 16,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2006-0394, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket--Mail Code
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: Don Waye, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds, Mail
Code 4503-T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38182), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1569.07, OMB Control No. 2040-0153.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on 01/31/2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 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: Under the provisions of national Program Development and
Approval Guidance implementing section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) which was jointly developed
and published by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), 29 coastal States and 5 coastal Territories with
Federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs have developed and
submitted to EPA and NOAA Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Programs. EPA and
NOAA have fully approved 16 States and 5 Territories, and conditionally
approved 13 States. The conditional approvals will require States and
Territories to submit additional information in order to obtain final
program approval. CZARA section 6217 requires States and Territories to
obtain final approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Programs in
order to retain their full share of funding available to them under
section 319 of the Clean Water Act and section 306 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 125
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: 13 coastal States with conditionally
approved Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 13.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,625 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $60,125, this includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 500 hours in the
annual estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is the result of EPA and NOAA
having fully approved 21 of the 34 programs.

    Dated: January 11, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-750 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P