[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 64977]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-70-000]

Texas Dispatchable Wind 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Texas Dispatchable Wind 1 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 6, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26107 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64252-64253]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0485; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Leitchfield, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport,
Leitchfield, KY, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global
positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures
serving the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety
and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this
airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact

the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Leitchfield-Grayson
County Airport, Leitchfield, KY, to support IFR operations in standard
instrument approach procedures at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 49506, October 2, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0485 to
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport, Leitchfield, KY.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One
comment in support of the proposal was received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Leitchfield-Grayson
County Airport, Leitchfield, KY, providing the controlled airspace
required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures for IFR operations at this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018,
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

ASO KY E5 Leitchfield, KY [New]

Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport, KY
    (Lat. 37[deg]23'59'' N, long. 86[deg]15'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Leitchfield-Grayson County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 4, 2018.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-26800 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Response
(hours)
0.6 1.3
2.9
31.7
n/a
n/a 1.9
1
National average burdens and costs differ greatly between the State respondents and the various system
respondents. This should be taken into consideration when looking at the national average with or without EPA.
PWS labor costs were estimated by system size and water source by multiplying estimated burden (as described in
Section 6(a)(i)) for each activity by estimated system labor rates (see Exhibit 6 in Section 6(a)(i)). Non-labor costs
were also estimated by system size and water source, and by multiplying “number of systems” by “number of
sampling points” by “number of required samples” by “lab and shipping fees”. All burden and cost estimation
assumptions for systems and States are described in Section 6(a) and 6(b) in Part A of this document. Average “per
respondent” costs were derived by dividing through by the number of respondents from each category.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
44
This UCMR is necessary for several reasons. Its primary purpose is to support the
development of the CCL, the Administrator’s determination of whether to regulate a
contaminant, and regulation development. The data collected under UCMR may also be used as
a basis for determining exposure, for establishing the baseline for health effects and economic
analyses, for contaminant co-occurrence analyses, and for treatment technology evaluation,
including contaminant source management. Further, the data may indicate the need to initiate
research on health effects and treatment technology research, if they suggest that certain
contaminants have significant occurrence. Finally, as a secondary use, the data may guide future
source water protection efforts.
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; 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. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the
use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under
Docket ID Number OW 2009-0089, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version
of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select
“search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA
Docket ID Number (OW 2009-0089) and OMB Control Number OMB Control No. 2040-0270
in any correspondence.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
45
— PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT —
1
SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
1(a) Survey Objectives
The primary objective of the statistical methods applied in this information collection is
for EPA to identify and select a sample of PWSs that is representative of PWSs nationwide. The
selected sample of PWSs will conduct monitoring of contaminants identified by the UCMR
program. The representativeness of this sample of systems is critical to the UCMR program
because the drinking water contaminant occurrence data collected by the PWSs will be used to:
estimate national occurrence and exposure, establish a baseline for health effects and economic
analyses, and provide information for regulatory determinations.
1(b) Key Variables
Key variables associated with selecting a nationally representative sample of PWSs
include: system size, source water type, and geographical location.
1(c) Statistical Approach
Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA (as amended in 1996) requires that the UCMR program
include only a representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. In addition to
satisfying statutory requirements, selection of a sample of systems for participation in UCMR
allows for significant national costs savings, as compared to monitoring by all PWSs. To
estimate national occurrence and exposure, the primary UCMR program objective, the
representative sample of PWSs must allow EPA to collect high quality data about contaminant
occurrence.
1(d)
Feasibility
EPA anticipates that the survey (the statistical sample) objectives are achievable given
the existing time and resource constraints.
•
High PWS response/participation rates (>95%) during UCMR 1 have given EPA
confidence that equivalent or better can be achieved during UCMR 2.
•
The statistical approach to this data collection requires only a fraction of small systems to
conduct monitoring, resulting in much smaller cost and burden at the national level than
would be incurred if all systems monitored. Small systems that are selected for UCMR 2
monitoring will incur only a few hours of labor burden. EPA will pay for all laboratory
fees and shipping costs related to small system testing.
•
The survey results will be completed in time to inform the corresponding cycle of CCL
regulatory determinations.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
46
2 SURVEY DESIGN
2(a)
Target Population and Coverage
Public water systems are the target population for UCMR monitoring. Transient non-
community water systems and those that purchase all of their water from another system are not
subject to UCMR 2. All other PWSs that serve more than 10,000 people will be subject to at
least the Assessment Monitoring component of UCMR 2 monitoring. Eligible small PWSs
(serving 10,000 or fewer people) will only be required to conduct UCMR 2 monitoring if they
are part of the statistical selection, as described below. Small PWSs will only be selected to
monitor for either Assessment Monitoring or the Screening Survey, not both.
2(b) Sample Design
2(b)(i) Sampling Frame
EPA will develop the sample frame for the statistical selection of UCMR systems,
including the system PWSID, name, source water category, and population-served data for each
UCMR-eligible PWS. Initial data will be pulled from EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) inventory database, and will be adjusted to account for known anomalies in
population and inventory reporting (for example, how consecutive systems or wholesalers report
their population data).
2(b)(ii) Sample Size
UCMR 2 monitoring will include: Assessment Monitoring conducted by all PWSs
serving more than 10,000 people (“large” PWSs), and 800 representative PWSs serving 10,000
or fewer people (“small” PWSs); and Screening Survey conducted by all PWSs serving more
than 100,000 people, and 800 representative PWSs serving 100,000 or fewer people.
2(b)(iii) Stratification Variables
In developing the representative sample, EPA considers factors such as population
served, water source, and geographic location. The sample PWSs will be stratified by population
served (system size), allocating samples proportionately to each State by system size, and then
by water source type. (Other provisions, presented below, ensure broad geographic coverage.)
2(b)(iv) Sampling Method
To satisfy the specifications of SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(A), the representative sample
of systems will account for different system sizes, sources of water supply, and geographic
location (e.g., States). The sample will be stratified water source type (i.e., ground or surface
water) and by system size category (i.e., serves 25 to 500 people, 501 to 3,300 people, etc.). This
stratification allows EPA to account for different exposure risks of contaminant occurrence that
may be related to the vulnerability differences between surface and ground water sources and
differing management and financial capacity that can vary across system sizes.
With contaminant exposure assessment as a primary goal, systems will be selected in
proportion to the population served, as was generally done under UCMR 1. This population-

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
47
weighted allocation leads to statistically valid estimates of national exposure. To ensure the
sample provides equity across States for involvement in the UCMR, EPA will include at least
two systems from each State. This additional PWS selection requirement will provide allocation
across all the States and territories to account for differences in spatial vulnerability and
contaminant occurrence, and to ensure equity in participation. Small Tribal water systems across
the EPA Regions are grouped into a single category (equivalent to a “State”) for the
representative sample.
2(b)(v) Multi-Stage Sampling
Because PWS status often changes over time, EPA will also select “alternate” systems
that fit the size/source water strata of the originally selected system. Through an interactive
review process with the States, systems that no longer meet eligibility criteria (for example, if
they are in a different size category than when originally selected, have become inactive, or
purchase all of their water) will be replaced by an alternate system that meets the stratification
criteria.
2(c) Precision Requirements
2(c)(i) Precision Targets
The representative sample of PWSs must be selected so that the data collected yield
accurate and precise estimates of national contaminant occurrence (the fraction of systems in
which a contaminant occurs) and exposure (the fraction of people exposed to a contaminant). For
estimates of exposure fractions, the sampling strategy will allow for a margin of error of
"
1%
with 99% confidence, when the estimated exposure fraction is 1%. That is, if the estimated
exposure fraction is 1%, EPA will be able to state with 99% confidence that the true exposure
fraction is between 0% and 2%. Because there are uncertainties and sources of variation in this
and other such sampling programs, statistical sampling theory used to derive levels of accuracy
and precision may not account for all of these sources of variation. Hence, the high confidence
level, low allowable error, and consequent large sample size should help ensure adequate data to
meet the objectives of the UCMR program.
2(c)(ii) Nonsampling error
For those PWSs required to conduct UCMR monitoring, response is a requirement. As
with any regulation, some non-compliance can be expected. However, high compliance levels
(>95%) during UCMR 1 (attributable to extensive outreach and compliance assistance) give EPA
confidence that the same or better can be achieved during UCMR 2. EPA plans to continue
outreach and compliance assistance efforts, as needed.
2(d) Questionnaire Design
No questionnaires will be used for the UCMR. Analytical results for contaminant
occurrence will be electronically reported directly by the laboratories to EPA’s electronic
reporting system.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
48
3
PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS
For UCMR 2, EPA will apply the same basic statistical methods that were used for the
UCMR 1 national representative sample of small systems. Following sample adjustments made
through communications with States, >99% of the final sample of small systems and >95% of
large systems completed their required UCMR1 monitoring and reporting.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
49
4
COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW-UP
4(a) Collection Methods
Large PWSs (those serving more than 10,000 people) are required to submit their data
through EPA’s electronic data reporting system. Small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer
people) will be working directly with an EPA-appointed UCMR Sampling Coordinator, and
monitoring data from the small PWSs will be submitted directly to EPA’s electronic reporting
system by the laboratories conducting the analyses.
4(b)
Survey Response and Follow-up
High compliance levels (>95%) during UCMR 1 have given EPA confidence that
equivalent or better levels can be achieved during UCMR 2. EPA plans to continue outreach and
compliance assistance efforts, as needed. Each small system will be working with a UCMR
Sampling Coordinator, and will have minimal reporting requirements and one-on-one
compliance assistance.
“Lessons learned” during UCMR 1 helped refine several UCMR 2 requirements.
Monitoring schedules in UCMR 2 have been specified for all large systems (whereas in UCMR
1, large systems could choose when to monitor across a multi-year monitoring period). In
addition, reporting deadlines have been more clearly defined. In some cases during UCMR 1,
EPA had to wait until the end of a three-year monitoring period to make a compliance
determination and contact systems with appropriate follow-up. With the revisions under UCMR
2, EPA or participating States will have the ability to quickly contact systems regarding sample
results that are not received when expected.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
50
5 ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS
5(a) Data Preparation
After PWSs or their laboratories post their UCMR 2 monitoring results and required data
elements to EPA’s electronic reporting system, EPA allows a specified time for quality control
review by the PWS, States, and the Agency before placing the data in NCOD for public access.
Data problems may occur, but the following efforts will be taken by EPA to reduce
problems and increase the dependability and quality of the occurrence data. The UCMR
electronic data reporting system and EPA QA/QC assessments will screen for the use of
inappropriate measurement units and other improper data. In addition, EPA uses other QC
measures to identify possible data quality issues such as duplicate data submissions, and data
completeness. All samples will be collected by trained PWS staff and analytical results will be
generated by laboratories that are approved for UCMR 2 drinking water analysis. Electronic data
submission also avoids potential re-keying errors. Therefore, some assumptions are made
regarding the general quality of the raw data that will be received. As part of the data QA/QC
procedures, all edits or changes made to the data will be documented.
5(b) Analysis
For UCMR 1, EPA developed a two-stage analytical approach for the evaluation of the
national occurrence of contaminants. UCMR 2 expects to use the same 2-tier approach to
analyzing the data.
The first stage of analysis, Stage 1, provides a straight-forward evaluation of occurrence
for simple and conservative assessments of contaminant occurrence. The Stage 1 analysis of the
UCMR data consists of non-parametric, unweighted counts and simple descriptive statistics of
analytical results for each of the contaminants. These occurrence analyses are conducted at the
sample level, system level and population-served level. For each contaminant, occurrence
measures include the number and percent of samples for each contaminant with analytical
detections, and the minimum, median, maximum, and 99th percentile values of those detections.
System-level occurrence measures include the number and percent of systems with one or more
analytical detections, and the number and percent of systems with two or more analytical
detections of a given contaminant. Population-served occurrence measures include: the number
and percent of population-served by systems with one or more analytical detections, and the
number and percent of population-served by systems with two or more analytical detections of a
given contaminant. Similar measures may also be conducted for each entry point to the
distribution system for each system. Since these contaminant and system level occurrence
measures are based on raw occurrence data (that have not been adjusted for population-
weighting and sampling), they are less accurate representations of national occurrence than
occurrence measures based on adjusted occurrence data.
Based on the findings of the Stage 1 analysis, EPA can select contaminant(s) for which
more detailed and sophisticated statistical evaluations -- the Stage 2 analysis -- may be warranted
as a next step to generate national probability estimates of contaminant occurrence and exposure.
Specifically, the modeling and estimation of system mean contaminant concentrations may be

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
51
desired. The Stage 2 analysis uses a Bayesian-based hierarchical model to estimate the percent
(and number) of systems with a mean contaminant concentration above any specified
concentration threshold. The Bayesian-based Hierarchical Model also provides quantified error
of estimation, and enables estimates of mean contaminant concentrations below the MRL. This
statistical model was used to generate the contaminant occurrence estimates for 60 regulated
contaminants for the first Six-Year Review of NPDWRs, for which it underwent a peer review.
5(c) Reporting Results
After final review, formatting, and analysis of the data collected through this ICR, the
data will be made available to the public through the NCOD, as was done with the data collected
and analyzed for UCMR 1. A full report, including detailed descriptions of the occurrence
analysis approach; data characteristics (including data quality and limitations); analytical
methodology; and analytical results, will be provided to the public and posted on the UCMR 2
Web site once complete. The analytical results and report will provide support for regulatory
determinations for the drinking water CCL.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
— APPENDICES —

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
APPENDIX A: Relevant Authorities in the SDWA 1996 Amendments
A A
Section 1401
For purposes of this title:
(1) The term “primary drinking water regulation” means a regulation which-
(A) applies to public water systems;
(B) specifies contaminants which, in the judgment of the Administrator, may have any
adverse effect on the health of persons;
(C) specifies for each such contaminant either–
(i) a maximum contaminant level, if, in the judgment of the Administrator,
it is economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of such
contaminant in water in public water systems, or
(ii) if, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not economically or
technologically feasible to ascertain the level of such contaminant sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of section 1412; and
(D) contains criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which
dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance with such levels
and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the system, and requirements as to (i)
the minimum quality of water which may be taken into the system and (ii) siting for new
facilities for public water systems. At any time after promulgation of a regulation referred
to in this paragraph, the Administrator may add equally effective quality control and
testing procedures by guidance published in the Federal Register. Such procedures shall
be treated as an alternative for public water systems to the quality control and testing
procedures listed in the regulation.
Section 1412(b)(1) Identification of contaminants for listing–
(A) General authority– The Administrator shall, in accordance with the procedures
established by this subsection, publish a maximum contaminant level goal and
promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant (other than a
contaminant referred to in paragraph (2) for which a national primary drinking water
regulation has been promulgated as of the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996) if the Administrator determines that–
(i) the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
(ii) the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood
that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at
levels of public health concern; and
A-1

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
(iii) in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such
contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for
persons served by public water systems.
(B) Regulation of unregulated contaminants–
(i) Listing of contaminants for consideration–
(I) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 5 years
thereafter, the Administrator, after consultation with the scientific
community, including the Science Advisory Board, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, and after considering the occurrence data
base established under section 1445(g), shall publish a list of contaminants
which, at the time of publication, are not subject to any proposed or
promulgated national primary drinking water regulation, which are known
or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require
regulation under this title.
(II) The unregulated contaminants considered under
subclause (i) shall include, but not be limited to, substances referred to in
section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and substances registered as
pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
(III) The Administrator’s decision whether or not to select
an unregulated contaminant for a list under this clause shall not be subject
to judicial review.
(ii) Determination to regulate–
(I) Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, and every 5 years
thereafter, the Administrator shall, after notice of the preliminary
determination and opportunity for public comment, for not fewer than 5
contaminants included on the list published under clause (i), make
determinations of whether or not to regulate such contaminants.
(II) A determination to regulate a contaminant shall be
based on findings that the criteria of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of
subparagraph (A) are satisfied. Such findings shall be based on the best
available public health information, including the occurrence data base
established under section 1445(g).
(III) The Administrator may make a determination to
regulate a contaminant that does not appear on a list under clause (i) if the
determination to regulate is made pursuant to subclause (II).
(IV) A determination under this clause not to regulate a
contaminant shall be considered final agency action and subject to judicial
review.
A-2

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
(iii) Review– Each document setting forth the determination for a
contaminant under clause (ii) shall be available for public comment at such time
as the determination is published.
(C) Priorities– In selecting unregulated contaminants for consideration under
subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall select contaminants that present the greatest
public health concern. The Administrator, in making such selection, shall take into
consideration, among other factors of public health concern, the effect of such
contaminants upon subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the general
population (such as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a
history of serious illness, or other subpopulations) that are identifiable as being at greater
risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to contaminants in drinking water than the
general population.
(D) Urgent threats to public health– The Administrator may promulgate an interim
national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant without making a
determination for the contaminant under paragraph (4)(C), or completing the analysis
under paragraph (3)(C), to address an urgent threat to public health as determined by the
Administrator after consultation with and written response to any comments provided by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the director of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention or the director of the National Institutes of Health. A
determination for any contaminant in accordance with paragraph (4)(C) subject to an
interim regulation under this subparagraph shall be issued, and a completed analysis
meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(C) shall be published, not later than 3 years
after the date on which the regulation is promulgated and the regulation shall be
repromulgated, or revised if appropriate, not later than 5 years after that date.
(E) Regulation– For each contaminant that the Administrator determines to regulate
under subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level
goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this
subsection. The Administrator shall propose the maximum contaminant level goal and
national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant not later than 24 months
after the determination to regulate under subparagraph (B), and may publish such
proposed regulation concurrent with the determination to regulate. The Administrator
shall publish a maximum contaminant level goal and promulgate a national primary
drinking water regulation within 18 months after the proposal thereof. The Administrator,
by notice in the Federal Register, may extend the deadline for such promulgation for up
to 9 months.
(F) Health advisories and other actions– The Administrator may publish health advisories
(which are not regulations) or take other appropriate actions for contaminants not subject
to any national primary drinking water regulation.
Section 1412(b)(4) Goals and standards–
(A) Maximum contaminant level goals– Each maximum contaminant level goal
established under this subsection shall be set at the level at which no known or
A-3

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
anticipated adverse effects of health of persons occur and which allows an adequate


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31265-31268]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12804]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0595; FRL-9677-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio; Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Control Measures for the Cleveland Ozone
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2011, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted several volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for
approval into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules, which
include the source categories covered by the Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) documents issued in 2008, as well as several other
miscellaneous rule revisions, will help Ohio's effort to attain the
2008 ozone standard. These rules are approvable because they are
consistent with the CTG documents issued by EPA in 2008, and satisfy
the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of the
Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0595, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning
and Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0595. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA taking today and what is the purpose of this
action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's submitted VOC rules?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What action is EPA taking today and what is the purpose of this
action?

    EPA is proposing to approve into the Ohio SIP several new VOC and
amended VOC rules under Chapter 3745-21 of the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC). These include new fiberglass boat manufacturing, miscellaneous
industrial adhesives, and automobile and light-duty truck assembly
coatings rules, which are consistent with the CTGs issued in 2008, as
well as revisions to definitions and rules for the control of VOC
emissions from stationary sources, storage of volatile organic liquids,
industrial cleaning solvents, and flatwood paneling coatings. These VOC
rules will help Ohio's effort to attain the 2008 ozone standard.
    EPA is also proposing to approve into the Ohio SIP amendments to
OAC 3745-72, which contain its Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel
Requirements, so that it is consistent with EPA requirements regarding
special provisions for alcohol blends.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Ohio's submitted VOC rules?

    As discussed previously, EPA issued new CTGs in 2008. EPA has
reviewed Ohio's new VOC rules for the source categories covered by
these CTGs, and proposes to find that those rules covered by the 2008
CTGs are consistent with the control measures, definitions,
recordkeeping, and test methods in these CTGs and applicable EPA RACT
guidance at www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/#ref. Ohio's revised
VOC rules are also consistent with applicable EPA guidance as described
above. Therefore EPA is proposing to approve these rules as meeting the
RACT requirements in the Act. A brief discussion of these rules
follows.

(1) 3745-21-01--Definitions

    Revisions to this section primarily consist of new definitions that
are needed to support the new and revised rules. These definitions are
consistent with EPA RACT guidance and are approvable.

(2) 3745-21-09--Control of Emissions of VOC From Stationary Sources and
Perchloroethylene From Dry Cleaning Facilities

    The main revisions in this section are the expiration of the
control requirements in 3745-21-09 (C), (U), and (HH) for the ``Surface
coating of automobile and light-duty trucks,'' ``Surface coating of
miscellaneous metal parts and products,'' and ``Surface coating of
automotive/transportation and business machine plastic parts,'' when
those sources, in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina,
Portage, and Summit Counties) become subject to and comply with the new
rules (discussed below) based on the new CTGs. These revisions are
approvable because the control requirements in the new CTGs are more
appropriate and include more stringent emission limits than the rules
being replaced.
    Additional requirements for flares have been added to 3745-21-
09(JJ), (LL), (UU), (ZZ), and (BBB) for ``The Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company,'' ``The Lubrizol Corporation,'' ``British Petroleum Company,
Toledo Refinery,'' ``Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company,'' and
``BF Goodrich Company Akron Chemical Plant.'' An unenforceable
numerical emission limit for BF Goodrich's agerite resin D process has
been replaced with the appropriate flare control requirements in
(DD)(10)(d), as well as the control equipment/flare monitoring
requirements in (10)(e), and the requirement in (10)(f) that the
control equipment/flare be operated at all times when emissions are
vented to it. For the other companies listed above, the flare control
requirements in (10)(d) have been enhanced by the addition of the
requirements in (10)(e) and (10)(f). The addition of these flare
requirements improves the enforceability of the control requirements in
3745-21-09(JJ), (LL), (UU), (ZZ), and (BBB) and they are therefore
approvable.

(3) 3745-21-21--Storage of Volatile Organic Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks
and External Floating Roof Tanks

    A minor revision was made to (D)(3)(c), which previously referred
to the requirements ``listed in paragraphs (D)(3)(c)(i) and
(D)(3)(c)(ii).'' This revision consisted of referring to the
``following'' requirements instead of the superfluous reference
``listed in paragraphs (D)(3)(c)(i) and (D)(3)(c)(ii).'' There was no
substantive change as a result of this rule revision.

(4) 3745-21-23--Control of VOC Emissions From Industrial Solvent
Cleaning Operations

    Ohio revised its applicability cutoff in (A)(1)(c) to 3.0 tons VOC
emissions per twelve-month rolling period. This cutoff is consistent
with the applicability cutoff in several CTGs and is therefore
approvable.
    Ohio has added alternatives, for manufacturers of coatings, inks or
adhesives, to the VOC-content limitations in (C)(1) and the cleaning
requirements in (C)(2). These requirements, in (C)(6)(b) are based on
the (California) Bay Area Air Quality Management District's rules,
which are referenced in EPA's CTG. These requirements apply to cleaning
mixing vats, high dispersion mills, grinding mills, tote tanks, and
roller mills and consist of four options: (1) The solvent or solvent
solution used must either contain less than 1.67 pounds VOC per gallon
or have a VOC composite partial vapor pressure of less than or equal to
8 millimeters (mm) of mercury (Hg); (2) several work practices must be
implemented, including storing all VOC-containing cleaning materials in
closed containers; (3) the emissions from equipment cleaning must be
collected and vented to an emission control system with an overall
control efficiency of 80 percent or more on a mass basis; or (4) no
more than 60 gallons of fresh solvent per month may be used (records of
which are required to be kept in (G)((7)), and all VOC-containing
cleaning materials must be stored in closed containers. In addition,
the owner or operator of a facility engaged in wipe cleaning may not
use open containers for the storage of organic compounds to be used for
cleaning, or for the storage or disposal of any material impregnated
with organic compounds used for cleaning.

Records of the volume of fresh solvent used per month, VOC content in
pounds of VOC per gallon or VOC composite pressure are required, if
applicable to the option chosen for achieving compliance.
    Paragraph (J) includes sufficiently detailed monthly recordkeeping
requirements for any facility that determines that it is exempt from
the requirements of this rule because emissions are less than 3.0 tons
per twelve-month rolling period. These cleaning solvent requirements
are therefore approvable because they are consistent with EPA guidance
and require adequate recordkeeping.

(5) 3745-21-24--Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

    Ohio added a paragraph (H) to provide the proper test methods for
use when a facility chooses to comply by use of an add-on control
device. These test methods are consistent with, and include, EPA test
methods and compliance testing requirements.
    Paragraph (K) includes sufficiently detailed daily recordkeeping
requirements for any facility that determines it is exempt from the
requirements of this rule because emissions are less than 15.0 pounds
of VOC per day.
    The additions to Ohio's flat wood paneling coating rule are
therefore approvable.

(6) 3745-21-27--Boat Manufacturing

    This new regulation is based on and is consistent with EPA's 2008
CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. The control
requirements for fiberglass boat manufacturing operations in the former
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area apply if
the combined emissions of VOC from all such operations equal or exceed
2.7 tons per rolling twelve-month period. This rule covers open molding
and gel coat operations, resin and gel coat mixing operations, and
resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations. Emission
limits are consistent with the CTG, as are VOC content and vapor
pressure limits applicable to cleaning activities associated with
fiberglass boat manufacturing.
    Subject facilities can comply by using specified monomer VOC
content limits (e.g. production resin applied via atomized spray would
need to comply with a weighted average monomer VOC content limit of 28
percent by weight) and a non-monomer VOC content limit of 5 percent. An
emission averaging option is also available.
    The VOC containing cleaning solutions for routine cleaning of
application equipment must either be no more than 5 percent VOC, by
weight, or the composite vapor pressure must be no more than 0.50 mmHg.
Also, mixing containers that are 55 gallons or greater must be covered.
Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to establish
applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.
    This rule is therefore consistent with RACT and is approvable.

(7) 3745-21-28--Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and Sealants

    This new regulation is based on and is consistent with EPA's 2008
CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive Application Operations. The
control requirements for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
operations in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area apply if the combined emissions of VOC from all such
operations equal or exceed 3.0 tons per twelve-month rolling period.
Subject adhesive application operations must either meet the specific
VOC content limitations, depending upon the application or the
substrate being bonded (e.g. 0.3 pounds VOC per gallon of adhesive for
bonding metal) or use an add-on control system that achieves an overall
VOC reduction of at least 85 percent. Specific adhesive application
methods (e.g. electrostatic spray) and work practices are required to
reduce emissions. Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to
establish applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.
    This rule is therefore consistent with RACT and is approvable.

(8) 3745-21-29--Control of VOC Emissions From Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Assembly Coating Operations

    This new regulation is based on and is consistent with EPA's 2008
CTG for Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. The control
requirements for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating
operations in the former Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area apply if the combined emissions of VOC from all such
operations equal or exceed 3.0 tons per twelve-month rolling period.
Specified emission limits, e.g. 12.0 pounds VOC/gallon coating solids
deposited for topcoat operations, are consistent with the CTG. As
specified in the CTG, compliance with these limits is based on EPA's
``Protocol for Determining the Daily VOC Emission Rate of Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations.'' This
testing protocol considers the VOC content limit, the transfer
efficiency and the efficiency of add-on control to establish compliance
with the applicable emission limit.
    Work practices for coating-related activities and cleaning
materials, such as storing all VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and
coating-related waste materials in closed containers are also required.
Appropriate compliance procedures and test methods, as well as
sufficient recordkeeping requirements to establish compliance and
applicability are also included in this regulation.
    This rule is therefore consistent with RACT and is approvable.

(9) 3745-72--Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements

    Ohio's amendments to OAC 3745-72, which contain its low Reid vapor
pressure fuel requirements, are approvable because they are consistent
with EPA requirements regarding special provisions for alcohol blends.
Conclusion
    EPA is proposing to approve into the Ohio SIP the new rules for
fiberglass boat manufacturing (3745-21-27), miscellaneous industrial
adhesives (3745-21-28), and automobile and light-duty truck assembly
coatings (3745-21-29), as well as amended rules for definitions (3745-
21-01), the control of VOC emissions from stationary sources (3745-21-
09), storage of volatile organic liquids (3745-21-21), industrial
cleaning solvents (3745-21-23), flat wood paneling coatings (3745-21-
24), and low Reid vapor pressure fuel requirements (3745-72).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the 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 Part 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 CAA; 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-12804 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24644-24645]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08420]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-808, OMB Control No. 3235-0762]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request: Extension: Rule 151-1

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 151-
1 (17 CFR 240.151-1), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 151-1 established a standard of conduct for broker-dealers and
natural persons who are associated persons of a broker-dealer
(together, ``broker-dealers'') when making a recommendation of any
securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a
retail customer (``Regulation Best Interest''). Regulation Best
Interest requires broker-dealers, when making a recommendation of any
securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a
retail customer, to act in the best interest of the retail customer at
the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or
other interest of the broker-dealer or natural person who is an
associated person making the recommendation ahead of the interest of
the retail customer.
    The information that must be collected pursuant to Regulation Best
Interest is intended to: (1) improve

disclosure about the scope and terms of the broker-dealer's
relationship with the retail customer, which would foster retail
customers' understanding of their relationship with a broker-dealer;
(2) enhance the quality of recommendations provided by establishing an
express best interest obligation under the federal securities laws; (3)
enhance the disclosure of a broker-dealer's conflicts of interest; and
(4) establish obligations that require mitigation, and not just
disclosure, of conflicts of interest arising from financial incentives
associated with broker-dealer recommendations. The information will
therefore help establish a framework that protects investors and
promotes efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    There are approximately 2,683 respondents that must comply with
Rule 151-1. The aggregate annual burden for all respondents is
estimated to be 2,568,434 hours, or 957 hours per respondent (2,568,434
hours/2,683 respondents). Under Rule 151-1, respondents will also incur
cost burdens. The aggregate annual cost burden for all respondents is
estimated to be $12,085,860, or $4,505 per respondent ($12,085,860/
2,681 respondents).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by May 22, 2023 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 17, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08420 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10324-10325]
[DOCID:fr10mr09-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59485; File No. SR-Nasdaq-2009-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC To
Eliminate the $3 Price Requirement for Continued Approval for an
Underlying Security and Listing Additional Series of Options

March 2, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 27, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. Nasdaq has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes for NOM to modify Chapter IV, Section 4 (Securities
Traded on NOM) of its options rules to eliminate the $3 market price
per share requirement for continued approval for an underlying
security. Nasdaq also proposes to modify Section 4 by eliminating the
prohibition against listing additional series of options on an
underlying security at any time when the price per share of such
underlying security is less than $3.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from Nasdaq's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq'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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate the $3
market price per share requirement for continued approval for an
underlying security from Chapter IV, Section 4 of NOM options rules.
This proposed rule change also eliminates the prohibition against
listing additional series or options on an underlying security at any
time when the price per share of such underlying security is less than
$3.
    NOM's rules require that the market price for a security be at
least $3 on the previous trading day for the continued listing of
options on that underlying security. If the price of an underlying
security falls below $3, Nasdaq can continue to trade then-listed
series on that underlying security, but is unable to list new series of
options. Nasdaq believes that the current $3 market price per share
requirement could have a negative effect on investors. For example, in
the current volatile market environment in which the market price for a
large number of securities has fallen below $3, Nasdaq is currently
unable to list new series on underlying securities trading below $3. If
there is market demand for series below $3, Nasdaq would be unable to
accommodate such requests and investors would be unable to hedge their
positions with options series with strikes below $3.
    Nasdaq believes that the $3 market price per share requirement is
no longer necessary or appropriate, and therefore proposes that
underlying securities meeting the remaining continued listing criteria
set forth in Chapter IV, Section 4 will be eligible for continued
listing and the listing of additional options series.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, remove impediments

to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In particular, the proposed rule change will permit Nasdaq to
make options on underlying securities available even if the price of
the underlying security is less than $3 thus providing investors
additional opportunities to hedge their positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission has determined to waive the five-day pre-filing
period in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \8\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Nasdaq requests that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission notes
that this proposed rule change is substantially identical to a proposed
rule change that was approved by the Commission after an opportunity
for public comment,\10\ and does not raise any new substantive issues.
The Exchange believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay would
advance similar rules for listing similar products on options exchanges
and is essential for competitive purposes. For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay \11\ is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ Nasdaq's proposed rule change is substantially identical to
a proposed rule change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') recently approved by the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59336 (February 2, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2008-
127).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Nasdaq-2009-016 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-Nasdaq-2009-016. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Nasdaq-2009-016 and should
be submitted on or before March 31, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4958 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18053-18054]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-1646]

Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request
for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice, establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug
Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is
to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The
meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for
public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 11, 2019, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
and June 12, 2019, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2019-N-1646 . The docket will close on June
30, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by June 30, 2019. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before June 30, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic
filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the
end of June 30, 2019. 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.
    Comments received on or before May 28, 2019, will be provided to
the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA.
    You may submit comments 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-2019-N-1646 for ``Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug
Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a
Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see the ADDRESSES section) 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.'' FDA 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 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 the 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, September18, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the

FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and
scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call
the advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: FDA is seeking public input on the clinical utility and
safety concerns associated with the higher range of opioid analgesic
dosing (both in terms of higher strength products and higher daily
doses) in the outpatient setting. FDA is interested in better
understanding current clinical use and situations that may warrant use
of higher doses of opioid analgesics. We are also interested in
discussing the magnitude and frequency of harms associated with higher
doses of opioid analgesics relative to lower doses, as well as optimal
strategies for managing these risks while ensuring access to
appropriate pain management for patients.
    FDA frequently hears from patients and healthcare providers that
higher-dose opioid analgesics continue to be a unique and necessary
part of effective pain management for some patients. FDA is also
cognizant of serious safety concerns associated with both higher
strengths and higher daily doses of opioid analgesics, both in patients
and in others who may access these drugs. Higher strength products may
be more harmful in cases of accidental exposure and overdose and may
also be more sought out for misuse and abuse. Along with a number of
other factors, a higher daily opioid dose is associated with greater
risk of overdose. Concerns have also been raised that higher dose
opioid regimens may carry a higher risk of addiction, although robust
evidence for a causal relationship is lacking. There is a strong
association between higher opioid dose and duration/persistence of
opioid analgesic therapy and assessing temporal relationships and
independent effects of opioid dose and duration on the risks of both
addiction and overdose is challenging. In addition, FDA acknowledges
the complex and evolving landscape of the opioid epidemic, with myriad
Federal, State, local, and payer efforts to encourage more judicious
prescribing of opioid analgesics, and the growing threat of highly
lethal illicit opioids.
    To better understand both the clinical utility and harms of higher
dose opioid analgesics in the current environment, and to discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of various potential risk-management
strategies, FDA brings these issues to an advisory committee to seek
input and advice from the clinical, patient, public health, and
research communities.
    In particular, FDA seeks to discuss: (1) The current clinical use
and situations that may warrant pain management with opioid analgesics
at higher product strengths and daily doses, factors influencing
prescribing practices, and specific patient populations for whom there
may be utility in prescribing these medications at higher doses; (2)
the magnitude and frequency of harms associated with opioid analgesics
at higher product strengths and daily doses, relative to lower
strengths and daily doses, including the role of opioid dose in adverse
health outcomes in both patients and in others who may access the drugs
(e.g., risk for developing addiction, fatal overdose), the relevance of
therapy duration and physical opioid dependence, and risks in different
subpopulations (e.g., patients with chronic non-cancer pain, young
children, adolescents); and (3) possible FDA interventions and their
expected impact on patients and public health more broadly, including,
for example, potential effects on prescribing and pain management
practices, patient experience and behaviors, and adverse outcomes such
as addiction and overdose.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committees.
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 12, 2019. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before May
17, 2019. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by May 20, 2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Moon Hee V. Choi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 24, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-08610 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58201-58202]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 180712626-8840-01]
 RIN 0694-AH61

Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) controls the export
of dual-use and less sensitive military items through the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR), including the Commerce Control List
(CCL). As controls on exports of technology are a key component of the
effort to protect sensitive U.S. technology, many sensitive
technologies are listed on the CCL, often consistent with the lists
maintained by the multilateral export control regimes of which the
United States is a member. Certain technologies, however, may not yet
be listed on the CCL or controlled multilaterally because they are
emerging technologies. As such, they have not yet been evaluated for
their national security impacts. This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks public comment on criteria for identifying
emerging technologies that are essential to U.S. national security, for
example because they have potential conventional weapons, intelligence
collection, weapons of mass destruction, or terrorist applications or
could provide the United States with a qualitative military or
intelligence advantage. Comment on this ANPRM will help inform the
interagency process to identify and describe such emerging
technologies. This interagency process is anticipated to result in
proposed rules for new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on
the CCL.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments through either of the following:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS 2018-0024.
     Address: By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy
Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230. Refer to RIN 0694-AH61.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Mortimer, Office of National
Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Department of Commerce. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax (202) 482-
3355; Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year 2019, Public Law No: 115-232, Congress enacted the Export Control
Reform Act of 2018 (the Act or ECRA). Section 1758 of the Act
authorizes Commerce to establish appropriate controls, including
interim controls, on the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of
emerging and foundational technologies. Under the Act, emerging and
foundational technologies are those essential to the national security
of the United States and are not described in Section 721(a)(6)(A)(i)-
(v) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. Emerging and
foundational technologies, in keeping with ECRA, will be determined by
an interagency process that will consider both public and classified
information as well as information from the Emerging Technology
Technical Advisory Committee and the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States.
    In identifying emerging and foundational technologies, the process
must consider:
     The development of emerging and foundational technologies
in foreign countries;
     The effect export controls may have on the development of
such technologies in the United States; and
     The effectiveness of export controls on limiting the
proliferation of emerging and foundational technologies in foreign
countries.
    To help inform this process, this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) proposes several general areas for public comment.
Given the challenges involved in identifying emerging and foundational
technologies, this ANPRM will help Commerce and other agencies propose
specific emerging technologies for control.
    Once an emerging or foundational technology has been identified,
the Act authorizes Commerce to establish controls, including interim
controls, on the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of that
technology. In determining the appropriate level of export controls,
the Department must consider the potential end-uses and end-users of
the technology, and countries to which exports from the United States
are restricted (e.g., embargoed countries). While Commerce has
discretion to set the level of export controls, at a minimum it must
require a license for the export of emerging and foundational
technologies to countries subject to a U.S. embargo, including those
subject to an arms embargo. Responses to this ANPRM will help Commerce
and other agencies identify and assess emerging technologies for the
purposes of updating the export control lists without impairing
national security or hampering the ability of the U.S. commercial
sector to keep pace with international advances in emerging fields.

Emerging Technologies

    To assist BIS in identifying emerging technologies that are
essential to the national security of the United States, this ANPRM
seeks public comment on criteria for defining and identifying emerging
technologies. This ANPRM describes certain categories of technology
that are currently subject to the EAR but controlled only to embargoed
countries, countries designated as supporters of international
terrorism, and restricted end uses or end users. These categories are a
representative list of the

technology categories from which Commerce, through an interagency
process, seeks to determine whether there are specific emerging
technologies that are important to the national security of the United
States for which effective controls can be implemented that avoid
negatively impacting U.S. leadership in the science, technology,
engineering, and manufacturing sectors.
    Commerce does not seek to expand jurisdiction over technologies
that are not currently subject to the EAR, such as ``fundamental
research'' described in Sec.  734.8 of the EAR. For purposes of this
ANPRM, Commerce does not seek to alter existing controls on technology
already specifically described in the CCL. Such controls would
generally continue to be addressed through multilateral regimes or
interagency reviews.

Foundational Technology

    Commerce will issue a separate ANPRM regarding identification of
foundational technologies that may be important to U.S. national
security. Commerce seeks public comment, however, on treating emerging
and foundational technologies as separate types of technology.

Representative Technology Categories

    The representative general categories of technology for which
Commerce currently seeks to determine whether there are specific
emerging technologies that are essential to the national security of
the United States include:
    (1) Biotechnology, such as:
    (i) Nanobiology;
    (ii) Synthetic biology;
    (iv) Genomic and genetic engineering; or
    (v) Neurotech.
    (2) Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technology,
such as:
    (i) Neural networks and deep learning (e.g., brain modelling, time
series prediction, classification);
    (ii) Evolution and genetic computation (e.g., genetic algorithms,
genetic programming);
    (iii) Reinforcement learning;
    (iv) Computer vision (e.g., object recognition, image
understanding);
    (v) Expert systems (e.g., decision support systems, teaching
systems);
    (vi) Speech and audio processing (e.g., speech recognition and
production);
    (vii) Natural language processing (e.g., machine translation);
    (viii) Planning (e.g., scheduling, game playing);
    (ix) Audio and video manipulation technologies (e.g., voice
cloning, deepfakes);
    (x) AI cloud technologies; or
    (xi) AI chipsets.
    (3) Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) technology.
    (4) Microprocessor technology, such as:
    (i) Systems-on-Chip (SoC); or
    (ii) Stacked Memory on Chip.
    (5) Advanced computing technology, such as:
    (i) Memory-centric logic.
    (6) Data analytics technology, such as:
    (i) Visualization;
    (ii) Automated analysis algorithms; or
    (iii) Context-aware computing.
    (7) Quantum information and sensing technology, such as
    (i) Quantum computing;
    (ii) Quantum encryption; or
    (iii) Quantum sensing.
    (8) Logistics technology, such as:
    (i) Mobile electric power;
    (ii) Modeling and simulation;
    (iii) Total asset visibility; or
    (iv) Distribution-based Logistics Systems (DBLS).
    (9) Additive manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing);
    (10) Robotics such as:
    (i) Micro-drone and micro-robotic systems;
    (ii) Swarming technology;
    (iii) Self-assembling robots;
    (iv) Molecular robotics;
    (v) Robot compliers; or
    (vi) Smart Dust.
    (11) Brain-computer interfaces, such as
    (i) Neural-controlled interfaces;
    (ii) Mind-machine interfaces;
    (iii) Direct neural interfaces; or
    (iv) Brain-machine interfaces.
    (12) Hypersonics, such as:
    (i) Flight control algorithms;
    (ii) Propulsion technologies;
    (iii) Thermal protection systems; or
    (iv) Specialized materials (for structures, sensors, etc.).
    (13) Advanced Materials, such as:
    (i) Adaptive camouflage;
    (ii) Functional textiles (e.g., advanced fiber and fabric
technology); or
    (iii) Biomaterials.
    (14) Advanced surveillance technologies, such as:
    Faceprint and voiceprint technologies.
    BIS welcomes comments on: (1) How to define emerging technology to
assist identification of such technology in the future; (2) criteria to
apply to determine whether there are specific technologies within these
general categories that are important to U.S. national security; (3)
sources to identify such technologies; (4) other general technology
categories that warrant review to identify emerging technology that are
important to U.S. national security; (5) the status of development of
these technologies in the United States and other countries; (6) the
impact specific emerging technology controls would have on U.S.
technological leadership; (7) any other approaches to the issue of
identifying emerging technologies important to U.S. national security,
including the stage of development or maturity level of an emerging
technology that would warrant consideration for export control.
    Comments should be submitted to BIS as described in the ADDRESSES
section of this ANPRM by December 19, 2018.
    This rule was determined to be significant by the Office of
Management Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    Dated: November 14, 2018.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-25221 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/02/2008 01:30 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Lydia Wegman, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Heninger

Subject

chs 4, 6, 8

Heidi, you now should have latest copies of all the chapters.   I did not resend chapter 5 Neal sent eariler.   You will also note that this is the first time you are seeing chapter 8 which has all the executive order discussions.  That was created late yesterday from the proposal package, it should have the correct information but needs formating.

Ron