MEMORANDUM

TO:	Brian D’Amico, EPA/EAD

FROM:	Mary Willett, ERG

DATE:	June 30, 2009

SUBJECT:	Evaluation of Proposed Compliance Alternative Ammonia
Limitations with respect to Airport Deicing Stormwater Typical Ammonia
Discharges

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to compare the proposed compliance
alternative ammonia  limitation and standard for airport deicing
operations to airport deicing stormwater discharges of ammonia at
airports that use urea-based airfield deicing chemicals.

Basis of EPA’s Proposed BAT for Airfield Deicing

As part of the proposed rule, EPA wants to reduce discharges associated
with the use of urea-based airfield deicing chemicals.  As a result, EPA
proposed BAT for airfield deicing to be product substitution and
required an airport to certify (in the absence of compliance monitoring)
that it is not using urea-based airfield deicing fluids.  However, EPA
also proposed a compliance alternative that would allow an airport to
choose to meet an alternative ammonia limitation rather than provide a
certification. Because EPA estimated costs for the collection and
treatment of airfield stormwaters and found the costs to be
prohibitively high for most airports and because airfield deicing
wastewater monitoring is extremely complex, EPA anticipates that
airports subject to the proposed rule would chose to replace urea-based
airfield deicing chemicals with a non-urea product and simply certify--
thus eliminating the necessity of monitoring and complying with the
proposed compliance alternative ammonia discharge limitation.

Basis of EPA’s Proposed Compliance Alternative Ammonia Discharge
Limitation

Because the proposed BAT for airfield deicing is product substitution,
any compliance alternative ammonia limit would appropriately reflect
non-use of urea.  However, EPA also proposed a COD limit that would
apply to all airport deicing stormwater discharges based on the
long-term treatment performance data provided by Albany International
Airport (ALB) which characterizes the treatment of deicing stormwaters
through an Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) treatment system.  A by-product
of this treatment process is ammonia generation.  As a result, the
Agency evaluated ammonia concentrations resulting from the ALB
wastewater treatment system and found that AFB discharges may have
higher ammonia concentrations than background ammonia levels found in
airfield runoff at airports without urea.  As a result, EPA based its
compliance alternative ammonia as N limitation on discharge
concentrations from the AFB wastewater treatment system.  See Table 1.

Table 1. EPA’s Proposed BAT Compliance Alternative Ammonia as N
Limitation and Standard

Pollutant	Daily Maximum (mg/L)

Ammonia as N	14.7

Using ammonia concentrations from the ALB effluent results in a proposed
compliance alternative ammonia limitation which is higher than airfield
runoff ammonia concentrations where no urea-based deicers are used.
However, as described in more detail below, EPA concludes that the
proposed compliance alternative limitation is lower than airfield runoff
ammonia concentrations where urea-based deicers are used.

Typical Ammonia Concentrations in Airport Deicing Stormwaters from
Airports That Use Urea-Based Airfield Deicing Chemicals

To evaluate whether airports which use urea-based airfield deicers in
the absence of treatment are likely to discharge deicing stormwaters
with ammonia as N (or ammonia) concentrations higher than the proposed
ammonia- N compliance alternative limitation, ERG reviewed data from the
following sources:

The Preliminary Data Study for the Airport Deicing Operations industry;

Several airport deicing stormwater studies; and

Industry-supplied data from Detroit Metropolitan Airport covering a
timeframe prior to the airport’s discontinuation of urea airfield
deicing chemical use.

Table 2 presents a summary of the information identified representing
typical ammonia as N (or ammonia) concentrations and concentration
ranges from these sources. Review of Table 2 shows that in general
deicing stormwater samples collected at airports with urea use reach
ammonia as N (or ammonia) concentrations that exceed the proposed
compliance alternative limitation (in some cases, by an
order-of-magnitude). Of the 11 U.S. airports included in the table with
either active urea use or suspected urea use, all but one showed maximum
ammonia as N or ammonia concentrations above the proposed compliance
alternative limitation, with maximum concentrations ranging from 1.1
mg/l to 171 mg/l. Additionally, studies for several non-U.S. airports in
Canada and Europe using urea airfield deicing chemicals also demonstrate
stormwater discharge ammonia concentrations above the proposed
compliance alternative limitation, with maximum concentrations ranging
from 17 mg/l to 124 mg/l.

Typical Ammonia Concentrations in Airport Deicing Stormwaters from
Airports that Discontinued Use of Urea-based Airfield Deicing Chemicals

Both the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW) and Pittsburgh International
Airport (PIT) used urea deicers for airfield deicing in the past but
have discontinued the practice. These airports provided long-term
ammonia data for selected collection ponds and outfalls. Table 3
presents the range of ammonia concentrations measured in Ponds 4 and 6
at DTW since the airport stopped using urea. Table 4 presents the range
of ammonia as N concentrations measured in runway related outfalls at
the PIT since the airport stopped using urea. These data indicate that
deicing stormwaters generated at airports that discontinue urea use
typically have ammonia concentrations in their deicing stormwaters below
1 mg/L. None of the samples exceeded the proposed daily maximum
compliance alternative limitation.

Conclusion

This analysis documents that EPA’s proposed compliance alternative
ammonia-N limitation would likely be exceeded by airports using urea as
a deicing chemical on their airfields in the absence of treatment;
requiring airport’s subject to the regulation to modify airfield
deicing urea use or to provide treatment. On the other hand, this
analysis also documents that airports that have discontinued urea
airfield deicing chemical would be able to comply with the proposed
compliance alternative ammonia-N limitation.  Table 2. Typical Ammonia
Concentrations in Airport Deicing Stormwaters

Airport	Source	Indication of Urea Use	Ammonia as N

Concentration Range (mg/L)	Deicing Stormwater Description

Greater Rockford	1	Yes	ND (0.5) – 82 	Airport submitted data (average
was 24 mg/l), 1999

Albany	1	Yes	88	Contents of the small lagoon, EPA sampling, airport
reported this concentration was an anomaly and they usually see < 45
mg/L

Albany	1	Yes	84	Composite of large lagoon and tank, EPA sampling, 1999

Bradley	1	Yes	1.1	Stormwater Outfall, EPA sampling, 1999

Chicago O’Hare	1	Not specified	0.2 – 50	PCS data pull, NW drainage,
avg. effluent = 10.8 mg/L, 1997/1998

Chicago O’Hare	1	Not specified	0.2 – 50	PCS data pull, N drainage,
avg. effluent = 11.2 mg/L, 1997/1998

Chicago O’Hare	1	Not specified	0.6 – 10	PCS data pull, NE drainage,
avg. effluent = 3.4 mg/L, 1997/1998

Chicago O’Hare	1	Not specified	2.6 – 85	PCS data pull, SE drainage,
avg. effluent = 35.1 mg/L, 1997/1998

Chicago O’Hare	1	Not specified	0.7 – 37.5	PCS data pull, SW
drainage, avg. effluent = 8.28 mg/L, 1997/1998

Chicago O’Hare	1	Not specified	50	PCS data pull, drainage from
deicing, 1997/1998

Louisville Standiford Field	1	Not specified	<0.03 – 171
Stormwater/deicing fluid runoff, PCS data pull, avg. effluent = <17.2,
1997/1998

Newcastle International Airport (United Kingdom)	2	Yes	105.7 (ammonia)
Measured at airport tributary, mean total ammonia concentrations from
samples taken during freezing conditions

Nine Canadian airports	3	Yes	Max up to 124 mg/L (ammonia)	Stormwater
runoff

Two European airports	3	Yes	Max of 105 and 89.7 mg/L (ammonia)
Stormwater runoff, mean values of 8.73 and 15.9 mg/L (ammonia)

Dayton International	4	Yes	Max of 161 mg/L	Dayton airport
self-monitoring data reported for 1994 at the retention basin.

Dayton International	5	Yes	11.3 – 13.7	Sampling results from the
Dayton airport northwest retention basin spillway overflow, Ohio EPA
sampling in February and April 1995.

Greater Cincinnati International	7	Not specified	39.1 (ammonia)	High
value at Station 4. Downstream of box culvert location draining runoff
from the taxi lane and runway in the DHL Airlines area.

BWI 	8	Yes	32 (ammonia)	Stormwater discharge pipe prior to discharge to
Kitten Branch, peak sample was 32 mg/L; composite sample was 40 mg/L
ammonia. Sampling occurred 2/26/93 during deicing event at the airport.

General Mitchell International Airport	9	Yes	Max of 25.4 (ammonia)
Sampled at Wilson Park Creek at the airport outfall 7 , sampled April
12, 1997

General Mitchell International Airport	10	Yes	16 (ammonia)	Sampled at
Wilson Park Creek at the airport outfall 7, sampled April 28, 1997

Western Pennsylvania airport (unnamed)	11	Yes	53.3	Concentrations as
high as 53.3 mg/L ammonia as N from breakdown of urea reported in
airport runoff samples

Canadian airports	12	Not specified	0.11 – 17 (total ammonia)	Chemical
analyses for environmental samples (runoff water)

Detroit Metropolitan	14	Yes	0.01 – 13.7 (ammonia)	Pond 3 concentration
range for submitted data prior to urea ban

Detroit Metropolitan	14	Yes	0.02 – 15.9 (ammonia)	Pond 4 concentration
range for submitted data prior to urea ban

Detroit Metropolitan	14	Yes	0.01 – 26.9 (ammonia)	Pond 6 concentration
range for submitted data prior to urea ban

Concentrations reported are for ammonia as N unless otherwise indicated.

Table 3. Detroit Metropolitan Airport Ammonia Concentrations for
Post-Urea Ban Timeframes

Airport	Source	Urea Use	Ammonia Concentration Range (mg/L)	Deicing
Stormwater Description

Detroit Metropolitan	14	No	0 – 1.5 (0.25 avg.)	Pond 4 – flow from
Pond 3E discharge to Frank and Poet Drains (includes runway/taxiway
runoff) (# samples = 52)

Detroit Metropolitan	14	No	0 – 2 (0.14 avg.)	Pond 6 – runway/taxiway
drainage from 3R/21L; portion 3L/21R; portion 4R/22L; 4L/22R; and 9R/27L
(# samples = 122)

Table 4. Pittsburgh Airport Ammonia as N Concentrations for Post-Urea
Ban Timeframes

Airport	Source	Urea Use	Year	Minimum Ammonia Concentration (mg/L)
Maximum Ammonia Concentration (mg/L)	Average Ammonia Concentration
(mg/L)	Outfall

Pittsburgh	15	No	2000	0.05	0.45	0.23	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2001	0.05	0.41	0.2	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2002	0.06	0.07	0.065	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2003	0.05	0.06	0.055	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2004	0.05	0.06	0.055	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2005	0.08	0.08	0.08	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2006	0.05	0.06	0.055	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2007	0.06	0.12	0.09	E100

Pittsburgh	15	No	2000	0.05	0.53	0.33	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2001	0.23	0.44	0.33	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2002	0.3	0.39	0.34	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2003	0.23	0.33	0.28	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2004	0.15	0.23	0.19	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2005	0.12	0.3	0.21	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2006	0.09	0.15	0.12	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2007	0.12	0.23	0.17	21

Pittsburgh	15	No	2000	0.05	0.51	0.16	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2001	0.05	0.2	0.125	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2002	0.06	0.09	0.075	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2003	0.05	0.05	0.05	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2004	0.05	0.06	0.055	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2005	0.05	0.14	0.095	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2006	0.05	0.1	0.075	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2007	0.05	0.11	0.08	21B

Pittsburgh	15	No	2000	0.12	0.71	0.33	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2001	0.41	1.03	0.72	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2002	0.3	1.29	0.795	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2003	0.61	0.92	0.765	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2004	0.19	0.46	0.325	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2005	0.06	0.14	0.1	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2006	0.15	0.25	0.2	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2007	0.07	0.18	0.125	22

Pittsburgh	15	No	2000	1.61	3.99	3.06	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2001	1.2	1.2	1.2	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2002	0.82	6.54	2.56	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2003	0.3	6.86	2.23	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2004	0.05	3.13	1.65	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2005	0.34	5.18	1.25	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2006	0.28	3.88	1.5	063

Pittsburgh	15	No	2007	0.16	4	1.19	063

Outfall E100: Airfield stormwater to east tributary of Enlow Run.

Outfall 21 and 21B: Airfield stormwater to west fork of McClarens Run.

Outfall 22: Airfield stormwater to east tributary of McClarens Run.

Outfall 063: Discharge point for the north runway.

Sources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Water. Preliminary Data
Summary:  Airport Deicing Operations. EPA-821-R-00-016, Washington, D.C.

Turnbull, DA, Bevan, JR. “The Impact of Airport De-icing on a River:
The Case of the Ouseburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne.” Environmental
Pollution 88 (1995) 321-332.

Sills, Robert D, et. al. The Environmental Impact of Deicers in airport
Stormwater Runoff.

Ohio EPA. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek. Dayton
International Airport. February 20, 1995.

Ohio EPA. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek – 1995.
Dayton International Airport. July 30, 1996.

Ohio EPA. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami River
Basin, 1998. June 21, 2000. OPEA Technical Report # MAS/1999-12/-3.

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water.
Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Creeks Boone County,
Kentucky.

Fisher, Daniel J., et. al. “The Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity of Storm
Water from an International Airport.” Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 1103-1111, 1995.

Corsi, Steven R., et. al. “Aircraft and Runway Deicers at General
Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 1.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen in Receiving Streams.”
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 1474-1482,
2001.

Corsi, Steven R., et. al. “Aircraft and Runway Deicers at General
Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Toxicity
of Aircraft and Runway Deicers.” Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 1474-1482, 2001.

Corsi, Steven R., et. al. “Aquatic Toxicity of Airfield-Pavement
Deicer Materials and Implications for Airport Runoff.” Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2009.

Novak, Lesley J., et. al. “Acute Toxicity of Storm Water Associated
with De-Icing/Anti-Icing Activities at Canadian Airports.”
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 1846-1855,
2000.

摧ⷑ)

G

b

k

Ï

?

C

’

“

¨

½

Ê

Ù

è

h

¹欀㩤

¹欀ᑤ

h

̀

̀

Ѐ

ࠀ

kd

摧ⳫS̀2008.

 Ammonia is a breakdown product of urea-based deicing fluids

Memorandum

June 30, 2009

Page   PAGE  5


[Federal Register: September 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 186)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 56225]
[DOCID:fr26se06-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 229

[Release Nos. 33-8732A; 34-54302A; IC-27444A; File No. S7-03-06]
RIN 3235-AI80

Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure

Correction

    In rule document 06-6968 beginning on page 53158 in the issue of
Friday, September 8, 2006, make the following correction:

Sec.  229.402  [Corrected]

    On page 53249, in Sec.  229.402(i)(1), in the table, in the third
column heading, in the third line, ``ast'' should read ``last''.

[FR Doc. C6-6968 Filed 9-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: November 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 59999-60001]
[DOCID:fr19no09-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60985; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2009-02]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing of the Thirteenth
Charges Amendment to the Second Restatement of the Consolidated Tape
Association Plan and Seventh Charges Amendment to the Restated
Consolidated Quotation Plan

November 10, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 19, 2009,\3\ the Consolidated Tape

Association (``CTA'') Plan and Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan
participants (``Participants'') \4\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to amend the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and Restated CQ Plan (collectively, the
``Plans'').\5\ The proposal represents the thirteenth charges amendment
to the CTA Plan (``Thirteenth Charges Amendment'') and the seventh
charges amendment to the CQ Plan (``Seventh Charges Amendment''), and
reflects changes unanimously adopted by the Participants. The
Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the CTA Plan and the Seventh Charges
Amendment to the CQ Plan (``Amendments'') would: (1) Delete all program
classification charges from the schedules of Network A and Network B
computer input charges; and (2) replace the current combined Network A/
Network B high speed line access charges with separate high speed line
access charges for Network A and Network B. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on
the proposed Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ On November 6, 2009, the Consolidated Tape Association sent
a letter correcting the number of the proposed amendment.
    \4\ Each participant executed the proposed amendment. The
Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange, LLC;
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
NYSE Amex LLC; and NYSE Arca, Inc.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (declaring the CTA Plan effective); 15009 (July
28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) (temporarily authorizing the
CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980), 45 FR 6521 (permanently
authorizing the CQ Plan). The most recent restatement of both Plans
was in 1995. The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate last sale price information for non-NASDAQ listed
securities, is a ``transaction reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under
the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a ``national market system plan'' under
Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to
which markets collect and disseminate bid/ask quotation information
for listed securities, is also a ``national market system plan''
under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Description and Purpose of the Amendments

    The Plans currently divide the different means of using market data
into eight program classifications. The program classification fees
payable by vendors and end-users depend on the category of use the
vendor or end-user makes of the data and whether the vendor or end-user
is using Network A market data or Network B market data, or both.
Through the Amendments, the Participants propose to eliminate program
classification charges and set separate fees for the receipt of Network
A market data and Network B market data.
    Over time, new technologies and new and innovative notions on how
to use market data have made it increasingly difficult to place data
uses into the existing program classifications in a manner that is
consistent and equitable for all. The Participants have come to believe
that it is inherently more equitable for them to charge vendors and
end-users for the method of access to the data and the quantity of
usage, rather than for the specific purposes (i.e., by program
classification) to which vendors and end-users put market data. The
Participants believe that eliminating the manner-of-data-usage charges
will modernize the CTA and CQ fee schedules and allow all vendors and
users to use data as they see fit, without having to worry about
whether a new usage would subject them to a new program classification
fee. The elimination of program classification charges means that
vendors will no longer need to provide detailed explanations of how
they use the data or to update Exhibit A to their agreements with the
Participants each time they put data to a new use.
    Additionally, the Participants propose to revise the access fees by
setting separate fees for the receipt of Network A market data and
Network B market data. Therefore, if a vendor or end-user wishes to
receive Network A last sale prices (or quotation information), but not
Network B last sale prices (or quotation information), the vendor or
end-user would now be allowed it to pay only for Network A last sale
prices, without also having to pay for Network B last sale prices and
vice versa.
    In addition to establishing separate access fees for Network A and
Network B, it is the intention of the Participants to set the new
access fees at levels that will offset the revenues that the
Participants anticipate they will lose as a result of eliminating the
program classification fees. The Participants' goal is to eliminate the
program classification fees and reset access fees in a revenue-neutral
manner and simplify and modernize the fee schedule while offering
vendors and end-users greater choice and flexibility in the receipt and
use of market data.
    The text of the proposed Amendments is available on the CTA's Web
site (http://www.nysedata.com/cta), at the principal office of the CTA,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

B. Additional Information Required by Rule 608(a)

1. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.
2. Implementation of the Amendments
    The Participants have manifested their approval of the proposed
amendments to the CTA and CQ rate schedule by means of their execution
of the Amendments. The Participants propose to make the rate changes
effective for calendar year 2010.
3. Development and Implementation Phases
    See Item I(B)(2) above.
4. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The amendment will impose no burden on competition.
5. Written Understanding or Agreements relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements
relating to interpretation of the CTA Plan and CQ Plan as a result of
the Amendments.
6. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan
    In accordance with Section XII(b)(iii) of the CTA Plan and Section
IX(b)(iii) of the CQ Plan, each of the Participants has approved the
rate changes.
7. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment
    a. Terms and Conditions of Access
    See Item I(A) above.
    b. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    See Item I(A) above.
    c. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
    d. Dispute Resolution
    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    See Item I(A) above.

H. Identification of Marketplace Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed
Thirteenth Charges Amendment to the CTA Plan and the Seventh Charges
Amendment to the CQ Plan are consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2009-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2009-02. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the Amendments that are filed
with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Amendments between the Commission and any person, other than those that
may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the Amendments also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the CTA. All comments received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2009-02 and should be submitted
on or before December 10, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27745 Filed 11-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 54621-54622]
[DOCID:fr08se10-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM07-10-002]

Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act;
Notice of Availability of Revised Form No. 552 for eFiling

August 31, 2010.
    On August 17, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget approved a
revised Form No. 552 under OMB Control Number 1902-0242. The Commission
had modified Form No.

552 in Order 704-C on June 17, 2010 (131 FERC ] 61,246). Accordingly,
today Commission staff has made available the revised Form No. 552, in
a fillable format suitable for submission, on its Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#552.
    Respondents should read the eFiling instructions, fill out the
revised Form No. 552, and eFile their calendar year 2009 data to the
Commission no later than October 1, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22274 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14077-14081]
[DOCID:fr24mr10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

 [EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0202; FRL-9129-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arkansas; Redesignation of
the Crittenden County, AR Portion of the Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas
1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
February 24, 2009, from the State of Arkansas to redesignate the
Arkansas portion of the bi-state Memphis, Tennessee-Arkansas 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to

as the ``bi-state Memphis Area'') to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The bi-state
Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area is composed of
Crittenden County, Arkansas and Shelby County, Tennessee. EPA's
approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination
that the bi-state Memphis Area has met the criteria for redesignation
to attainment set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the
determination that the bi-state Memphis Area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to the
Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for Crittenden County, Arkansas that contains
the new 2006 and 2021 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
for Crittenden County, Arkansas. The State of Tennessee has submitted a
similar redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Tennessee
portion of this 1997 8-hour ozone area. EPA has taken action on
Tennessee's redesignation request, emissions inventory and maintenance
plan through a separate rulemaking action (75 FR 56). On March 12,
2008, EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard. EPA later announced
on September 16, 2009, that it may reconsider this revised ozone
standard. The current action, however, is being taken to address
requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for the
bi-state Memphis Area under the 2008 standard will be addressed in the
future.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective April 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2009-0202. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section,
Air Planning Branch, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Mr. Riley may be reached by phone at
(214) 665-8542 or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for the Actions?
II. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for the Actions?

    On February 24, 2009, the State of Arkansas submitted a request to
redesignate Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part of the bi-state
Memphis Area) to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and for
EPA approval of the Arkansas SIP revision containing a maintenance plan
for Crittenden County, Arkansas. In an action published on January 14,
2010 (75 FR 2091), EPA proposed to approve the redesignation of
Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part of the bi-state Memphis Area) to
attainment. EPA also proposed approval of Arkansas' plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP revision, and proposed to
approve the NOX and VOC MVEBs for Crittenden County that
were contained in the maintenance plan. In the January 14, 2010,
proposed action, EPA also provided information on the status of its
transportation conformity adequacy determination for the Crittenden
County NOX and VOC MVEBs. EPA received no comments on the
January 14, 2010, proposal. Additionally, in a separate notice, EPA has
already found the NOx and VOC MVEBs, as contained in Arkansas'
maintenance plan for Crittenden County, adequate for the purposes of
transportation conformity. The MVEBs included in the maintenance plan
area as follows:

              Table 1--Crittenden County VOC and NOX MVEBs
                      [Summer season tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             2006     2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...................................................     6.27     1.84
VOC...................................................     2.95     1.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's adequacy public comment period on these MVEBs (as contained
in Arkansas' submittal) began on March 11, 2009, and closed on April
10, 2009. No comments were received during EPA's adequacy public
comment period. In a letter dated April 20, 2009, EPA informed the
State of Arkansas of its intent to make an affirmative adequacy
determination for the MVEBs contained in this maintenance plan for
Crittenden County, Arkansas. On May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21356), EPA
published a Federal Register notice deeming the MVEBs for Crittenden
County, Arkansas adequate for transportation conformity purposes. EPA
provided a separate adequacy posting for the MVEBs in association with
Shelby County, Tennessee. The Shelby County, Tennessee MVEBs (in
association with the bi-state Memphis Area) were found adequate through
a separate action published November 12, 2009 (74 FR 58277). This
action approves the NOX and VOC budgets in Table 1 for
Crittenden County.
    As was discussed in greater detail in the January 14, 2010,
proposal, this redesignation is for the 1997 8-hour ozone designations
finalized in April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). Various aspects of EPA's
Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were challenged in court and
on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court) vacated EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April
30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA,
472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit Court clarified that the Phase
1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the Rule that had
been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions
related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart
2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-
hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed
for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, remain effective. The June
8th decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By

limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision
affirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed
to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area
New Source Review requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS.
    As set forth in the January 14, 2010, proposal for the
redesignation of Crittenden County, Arkansas, EPA does not believe that
the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of Crittenden County,
Arkansas to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.

II. What Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Arkansas' redesignation
request and to change the legal designation of Crittenden County,
Arkansas from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The bi-state Memphis 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area
is composed of Crittenden County, Arkansas and Shelby County,
Tennessee. The redesignation request, maintenance plan and emission
inventory in association with the Tennessee portion of this Area have
been addressed through a separate, but coordinated action (75 FR 56).
In this action, EPA is also approving Arkansas' 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for Crittenden County, Arkansas (such approval being
one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to help keep Crittenden County, Arkansas
(as part of the bi-state Memphis Area) in attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through 2021. These approval actions are based on
EPA's determination that Arkansas has demonstrated that Crittenden
County, Arkansas has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the bi-state
Memphis Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's
analyses of Arkansas' 1997 8-hour ozone redesignation request and
maintenance plan are described in detail in the proposed rule published
January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2091).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes 2006 and 2021 MVEBs for NOx and VOC for Crittenden
County, Arkansas. In this action, EPA is approving these NOx and VOC
MVEBs for the purposes of transportation conformity. For regional
emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2021, the new 2006
MVEB are the applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting
transportation conformity analyses). For regional emission analysis
years that involve the year 2021 and beyond, the applicable budgets,
for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses, are
the new 2021 MVEB.

III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    EPA has determined that the bi-state Memphis Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and has also determined that Arkansas has
demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of
Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part of the bi-state Memphis Area) from
nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been
met. See, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also taking final
action to approve the maintenance plan for Crittenden County, Arkansas
as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d) of the CAA.
Furthermore, EPA is approving the new NOX and VOC MVEBs for
the years 2006 and 2021 contained in Arkansas' maintenance plan for
Crittenden County because these MVEBs are consistent with maintenance
for the bi-state Memphis Area. In the January 14, 2010, proposal to
redesignate Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part of the bi-state
Memphis Area), EPA described the applicable criteria for redesignation
to attainment and its analysis of how those criteria have been met. The
rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set forth in the proposed
rulemaking and summarized in this final rulemaking.

IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part of the bi-state Memphis Area)
from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found
at 40 CFR part 81. The approval also incorporates into the Arkansas SIP
a plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state
Memphis Area through 2021. The maintenance plan includes contingency
measures to remedy future violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and establishes NOx and VOC MVEBs for the years 2006 and 2021 for
Crittenden County, Arkansas. The other portion of the bi-state Memphis
Area is Shelby County, Tennessee. EPA has taken action on Tennessee's
redesignation request for Shelby County, Tennessee (as part of the bi-
state Memphis area) and the associated emissions inventory and
maintenance plan through a separate rulemaking action (75 FR 56).

V. Final Action

    After evaluating Arkansas' redesignation request, EPA is taking
final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal
designation of Crittenden County, Arkansas (as part of the bi-state
Memphis Area) from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA has addressed the redesignation request, emission
inventory and maintenance plan for Shelby County, Tennessee (as a
portion of the bi-state Memphis Area) in a separate but coordinated
action. Through this action, EPA is also approving into the Arkansas
SIP, the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Crittenden County,
Arkansas, which includes the new NOX MVEBs of 6.27 tons per
day (tpd) for 2006, and 1.84 tpd for 2021; and new VOC MVEBs of 2.95
tpd for 2006, and 1.39 tpd for 2021. These new MVEBs were found
adequate through a previous action (74 FR 21356). Within 24 months from
the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding for the MVEBs, the
transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new
NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose

additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 24, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: March 12, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.170(e) the third table is amended by revising the table
heading and column headings; and by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Crittenden County,
Arkansas'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *

            EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                   nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan     Crittenden, Shelby        2/26/2009  3/24/2010 [Insert
 for the Crittenden County,        County.                              FR page where
 Arkansas Area.                                                         document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.304, the table entitled ``Arkansas--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Memphis, TN-AR:
(AQCR Metropolitan Memphis Interstate) Crittenden County,'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.304  Arkansas.

* * * * *

                                                 Arkansas--Ozone
                                                [8-Hour standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Designation \a\                  Category/classification
            Designated area            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date \1\             Type            Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Memphis, TN-AR: (AQCR Metropolitan        (\3\)   Attainment...............    (\3\)   .........................
 Memphis Interstate) Crittenden County.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ April 28, 2008.
\3\ April 23, 2010.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-6343 Filed 3-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 59591-59593]
[DOCID:fr22oc07-127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0006

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California Motorcycles Are Eligible for
Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California motorcycles are eligible for
importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California motorcycles that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were
originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were
certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards,
and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATE: The closing date for comments on the petition is November 21,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov
.

    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) On that page, click on ``search for dockets.''
    (3) On the next page (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
), select NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number
and title shown at the heading of this document, and select
``Nonrulemaking'' from the drop-down menu in the Type field and
``Vehicle Import Eligibility'' in the drop-down menu in the Sub-Type
field.
    (4) After entering that information, click on ``submit.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of the word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the
Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under
49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor
vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland (``J.K.'')
(Registered Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
non-U.S. certified 2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California motorcycles are
eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles that J.K.
believes are substantially similar are 2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California
motorcycles that were manufactured for sale in the United States and
certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified
2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California motorcycles to their U.S. certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    J.K. submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2000-2001 Moto Guzzi California
motorcycles, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the
same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of
being readily altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2000-
2001 Moto Guzzi California motorcycles are identical to their U.S.
certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos.
106 Brake Hoses, 116 Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
other than Passenger Cars, 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles
other than Passenger Cars, and 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems.
    The petitioner further contends that the vehicles are capable of
being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated below:
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Installation of the following U.S.-certified components on
vehicles not already so equipped: (a) headlamps; (b) front and rear
side-mounted reflex reflectors; and (c) rear-mounted reflex reflector.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Inspection of all vehicles, and
installation of U.S.-model rearview mirrors on vehicles that are not
already so equipped.
    Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays: Installation of
a U.S.-model instrument cluster to meet the requirements of this
standard.
    Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials: Inspection of all vehicles, and
removal of noncompliant glazing or replacement of the glazing with
U.S.-certified components on vehicles that are not already so equipped.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: October 16, 2007.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
 [FR Doc. E7-20790 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9365-9366]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0893]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals
Processes

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on information collection
associated with certain Center for Devices and Radiological Health
(CDRH) appeals processes.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 19, 2022. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 19, 2022. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

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-2011-D-0893 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Center for Devices and
Radiological Health Appeals Processes.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.govinfo.gov/content/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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes

OMB Control Number 0910-0738--Extension

    This information collection supports implementation of
recommendations found in FDA guidance. As discussed in the document
entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Appeals
Processes'' (July 2019), there are various processes by which appeals
requests regarding review of decisions or actions by CDRH may be
submitted to the Agency. The guidance is available for download from
our website at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/center-devices-and-radiological-health-cdrh-appeals-processes. The guidance document provides general format and content
recommendations in this regard, discusses applicable regulations with
regard to the timing of such submissions, and describes the collection
of information not expressly specified under existing regulations such
as the submission of the request for review, minor clarifications as
part of the request, and supporting information. While CDRH already
possesses in the administrative file the information that would form
the basis of a decision on a matter under appeal, the submission of
information as recommended in the guidance regarding the appeal request
itself, as well as data and information relied on by the requestor in
the appeal, will help facilitate timely resolution of the decision
under review. We are accounting for burden respondents may incur as a
result of these Agency recommendations in this collection request.
Additional information about the CDRH appeals process is described in
the companion guidance entitled ``Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (CDRH) Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers About 517A--
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff'' (March
2020), also available for download from our website at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/center-devices-and-radiological-health-cdrh-appeals-processes-
questions-and-answers-about-517a.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
    CDRH Appeals Processes: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff         Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended format and content elements............................              35                1               35                8              280
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We estimate 35 requests will be submitted annually to review
decisions and actions by CDRH employees, we attribute one respondent
per submission, and we assume each request will take 8 hours to
prepare. Based on our evaluation of the information collection since
last OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to the currently
approved burden estimate.

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03546 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71151]
[DOCID:fr08de06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing

November 30, 2006.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House, Wade C..........................................      ID-5100-000
Carter, Calvin P.......................................      ID-5101-000
Bowman, M. Johnson.....................................      ID-5102-000
Andrew, J. William, Jr.................................      ID-5103-000
Frazier, William C.....................................      ID-5104-000
Reasor, Jackson E......................................      ID-5105-000
Garber, Fred C.........................................      ID-5106-000
Bradshaw, M. Dale......................................      ID-5107-000
Reynolds, James M......................................      ID-5108-000
Leech, William M., Jr..................................      ID-5109-000
Greenlaw, Hunter R., Jr................................      ID-5110-000
Brinkley, Vernon N.....................................      ID-5111-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on November 16, 2006, the above-captioned
applicants filed an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, Part 45
of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Commission Order No.
664.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 18, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20812 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P