Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took several years to come up with the Proposed Rule, so I think it is reasonable to allow the public six months to comment on it. Since this is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback I would like to take the time necessary to compile information and present an accurate account of my story and view on e-cigarettes.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17310-17312]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0720; Special Conditions No. 23-263-SC]

Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company Model HA-420; Single-
Place Side-Facing Seat Dynamic Test Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Honda Aircraft
Company HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature(s) associated with a side-facing passenger seat. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is April 1, 2015,
and is applicable on March 25, 2015. We must receive your comments by
May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0720]
using any of the following methods:
    [squ] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    [squ] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
    [squ] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [squ] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Stegeman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5
U.S. Code Sec. Sec.  553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the
substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public
comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments
received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making
these special conditions effective upon issuance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Special condition number              Company/airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-255-SC..............................  Embraer Model EMB 500.
23-251-SC..............................  Embraer Model EMB 500.
23-105-SC..............................  Sino Swearingen Model SJ130.
23-254-SC..............................  Embraer Model EMB 505.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type
certificate for their new Model HA-420 aircraft. On October 10, 2013,
Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective
application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type
certification basis to amendment 23-62.
    The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on
configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot
service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The
airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan
engines.
    The HA-420 design incorporates the installation of a side-facing
belted passenger seat as a customer configuration option. The
implication of the term belted is that the passenger seat will be used
during takeoff and landing and so must comply with the provisions of
Sec. Sec.  23.562, 23.785, and any additional requirements that the FAA
determines are applicable. In this case, the approval of a side-facing
seat to these provisions is considered new and novel and as such will
require special conditions and specific methods of compliance to
certificate.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must
show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as
amended by

amendment 23-1, dated July 29, 1965, through amendment 23-62, dated
December 2, 2011, thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the HA-420 because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.17(a)(2).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
feature: Side facing passenger seat intended for taxi/takeoff and
landing.
    The seat is to incorporate design features that reduce the
potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, a
2-point seatbelt and the adjacent padded wall will restrain the
occupant. In addition to the design features intended to minimize
occupant injury during an accident sequence, the adjacent forward wall/
bulkhead interior structure will have padding or at least be pliable
enough to absorb impact energy, which will provide some protection to
the head of the occupant.

Discussion

    The Code of Federal Regulations states performance criteria for
forward and aft facing seats and restraints in an objective manner.
However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific
issues raised concerning side-facing seats. Therefore, the FAA has
determined that, in addition to the requirements of parts 21 and 23,
special conditions are needed to address the installation of this seat
installation/restraint.
    Part 23 was amended August 8, 1988, by amendment 23-36, revised the
emergency landing conditions that must be considered in the design of
the airplane. Amendment 23-36 revised the static load conditions in
Sec.  23.561 and added a new Sec.  23.562 that required dynamic testing
for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The
intent of amendment 23-36 is to provide an improved level of safety for
occupants on part 23 airplanes. Because most seating is forward-facing
in part 23 airplanes, the pass/fail criteria developed in amendment 23-
36 focused primarily on these forward- and aft-facing seats. Since the
regulations do not address side-facing seats, these criteria should be
documented in special conditions.
    The FAA decision to review compliance with these regulations stems
from the fact that the current regulations do not provide adequate and
appropriate standards for the type certification of this type of seat.
These requirements are substantially similar to other single place
side-facing seat installations approved for use on several different
part 23 and part 25 aircraft.
    Accordingly, these special conditions are for the Honda Aircraft
Company model HA-420 side-facing seat location. Other conditions may be
developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with
the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and
it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above,
and has been derived without substantive change from those previously
issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a
significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary
and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code Sec. Sec.
553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective
upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested
persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to
the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420
airplanes.

1. Single-Place Side-Facing Seat

    In addition to the airworthiness standards in Sec. Sec.  23.562,
amendment 23-50 and 23.785, amendment 23-49, the following special
condition provides injury criteria and installation/testing guidelines
that represent the minimum acceptable airworthiness standard for
single-place side-facing seats:
a. The Injury Criteria
    (1) Existing Criteria: All injury protection criteria of Sec.
23.562(c)(1) through (c)(7) apply to the occupant of a side-facing
seat. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) assessments are only required for
head contact with the seat and/or adjacent structures.
    (2) Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact: The seat must be installed aft
of a structure such as an interior wall or furnishing that will support
the pelvis, upper arm, chest, and head of an occupant seated next to
the structure. A conservative representation of the structure and its
stiffness must be included in the tests. It is recommended, but not
required, that the contact surface of this structure be covered with at
least two inches of energy absorbing protective padding (foam or
equivalent), such as Ensolite.
    (3) Thoracic Trauma: Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) injury criterion
must be substantiated by dynamic test or by rational analysis based on
previous test(s) of a similar seat installation. Testing must be
conducted with a Side Impact Dummy (SID), as defined by 49 CFR part
572, subpart F, or its equivalent. TTI must be less than 85, as defined
in 49 CFR part 572, subpart F. SID TTI data must be

processed as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
part 571.214, section S6.13.5.
    (4) Pelvis: Pelvic lateral acceleration must be shown by dynamic
test or by rational analysis based on previous test(s) of a similar
seat installation to not exceed 130g. Pelvic acceleration data must be
processed as defined in FMVSS part 571.214, section S6.13.5.
    (5) Shoulder Strap Loads: Where upper torso straps (shoulder
straps) are used for occupants, tension loads in individual straps must
not exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for restraining the
upper torso, the total strap tension loads must not exceed 2,000
pounds.
b. General Test Guidelines
    (1) One longitudinal test with the SID ATD or its equivalent, un-
deformed floor, no yaw, and with all lateral structural supports
(armrests/walls).
    Pass/fail injury assessments: TTI and pelvic acceleration.
    (2) One longitudinal test with the Hybrid II ATD, deformed floor,
with 10 degrees yaw, and with all lateral structural supports
(armrests/walls).
    Pass/fail injury assessments: HIC; and upper torso restraint load,
restraint system retention and pelvic acceleration.
    (3) A vertical (15 G's) test is to be conducted with modified
Hybrid II ATDs using existing pass/fail criteria.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on March 25, 2015.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07503 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31171-31174]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12519]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72239; File No. SR-BX-2014-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

May 23, 2014.
    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 May 16, 2014, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposed to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled ``BX
Options Market--Fees and Rebates''. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to amend Routing Fees. While the changes proposed herein are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments
be operative on June 2, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet. com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

 1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Routing Fees in Chapter
XV, Section 2(3) to recoup costs incurred by the Exchange to route
orders to away markets.
    Today, the Exchange assesses a Non-Customer a $0.95 per contract
Routing Fee to any options exchange. The Customer \3\ Routing Fee for
option orders routed to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') and The NASDAQ
Options Market LLC (``NOM'') is a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee in
addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. The Customer Routing
Fee for option orders routed to all other options exchanges \4\
(excluding PHLX and NOM) is a fixed fee of $0.20 per contract (``Fixed
Fee'') in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. If the away
market pays a rebate, the Routing Fee is $0.10 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)).
    \4\ Including BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''),
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex'') and ISE Gemini, LLC
(``Gemini'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the fixed costs, the Exchange incurs a fee when it
utilizes Nasdaq Execution Services LLC (``NES''),\5\ a member of the
Exchange and the Exchange's exclusive order router. Each time NES
routes an order to an away market, NES is charged a clearing fee \6\
and, in the case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also
charged in certain symbols, which fees are passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange currently recoups clearing and transaction
charges incurred by the Exchange as well as certain other costs
incurred by the Exchange when routing to away markets, such as
administrative and technical costs associated with operating NES,
membership fees at away markets, Options Regulatory Fees (``ORFs''),
staffing and technical costs associated with routing options. The
Exchange assesses the actual away market fee at the time that the order
was entered into the Exchange's System. This transaction fee is
calculated on an order-by-order basis since different away markets
charge different amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to utilize Nasdaq
Execution Services, LLC (``NES'') for outbound order routing. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71420 (January 28, 2014), 79 FR
6256 (February 3, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-004).
    \6\ OCC assessed a $0.01 per contract side. The fee has recently
been increased from $0.01 to $0.02 per contract side. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71769 (March 21, 2014), 79 FR 17214 (March
21, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to increase Routing Fees to account for
increased OCC fees and other increased costs associated with clearing,
ORFs and other operational costs. The Exchange proposes to increase
Routing Fees for Non-Customer orders from $0.95 to $0.97 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to increase Customer Routing Fees as
described herein. The Exchange proposes to increase Customer Routing
Fees to NOM and PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per contract,
in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Routing Fees to all other exchanges (except NOM and
PHLX) from $0.20 to $0.22 per contract, in addition to the actual
transaction fee assessed, provided the away market does not pay a
rebate. If the away market pays a rebate, the Routing Fee assessed
would be $0.12 per contract, an increase from the current $0.10 per
contract. The Exchange proposes these increases to recoup an additional
portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing these orders.
    The Exchange is proposing to increase Non-Customer and Customer
Routing Fees by $0.02 per contract to cover the increased costs of
offering its members the opportunity to route to other options
exchanges. With the recent increase by OCC \7\ as well as increases in
ORFs and BX's operational expenses, the Exchange seeks to further
recoup a portion of increased costs with the increase to its Routing
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Customer Routing Fee
assessed when routing to all other options exchanges, if the away
market pays a rebate, from a $0.10 to a $0.12 per contract Fixed Fee,
in order to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the
Exchange for routing these orders. The Exchange does not assess the
actual transaction fee assessed by the away market, rather the Exchange
only assesses the Fixed Fee, because the Exchange would continue to
retain the rebate to offset the cost to route orders to these away
markets. This will remain the same.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which it operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Non-Customer and Customer
Routing Fees by $0.02 per contracts is reasonable because the Exchange
desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when
routing Non-Customer and Customer orders. Specifically, the Exchange's
proposal to increase Non-Customer fees from $0.95 to $0.97 per contract
is reasonable because the additional $0.02 per contract fee will recoup
increased costs borne by BX.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fees for
orders routed to NOM and PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per
contract is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an
additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders
to NOM or PHLX. The Exchange will continue to also assess actual
transaction fees assessed by NOM and PHLX for Customer orders.
    The Exchange believes that continuing to assess lower Fixed Fees to
route Customer orders to NOM and PHLX, as compared to other options
exchanges, is reasonable as the Exchange is able to leverage certain
infrastructure to offer those markets lower fees as explained further
below.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the fee for routing to all
other options exchanges (other than NOM and PHLX) from $0.20 to $0.22
per contact is reasonable because the increased fee would recoup costs
associated with routing Customer orders, in addition to the actual
transaction fee when no rebate is paid. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets,
other than NOM and PHLX, in the instance the away market pays a rebate
from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange
desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when
routing orders to these away markets. While the Exchange would continue
to retain any rebate paid by these away markets, the Exchange does not
assess the actual transaction fee that is charged by the away market
for Customer orders. The

Fixed Fee for Customer orders is an approximation of the costs the
Exchange will be charged for routing orders to away markets. As a
general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for
Customer orders routed to markets which pay a rebate would allow it to
recoup and cover a portion of the costs of providing optional routing
services for Customer orders because it better approximates the costs
incurred by the Exchange for routing such orders. While each
destination market's transaction charge varies and there is a cost
incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets,
including, OCC clearing costs, administrative and technical costs
associated with operating NES, membership fees at away markets, ORFs
and technical costs associated with routing options, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the
increased costs it incurs to route Customer orders to away markets.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Non-Customer Routing Fees
from $0.95 to $0.97 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Non-Customer
Routing Fee to all Non-Customer orders routed away. The Exchange
believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to
NOM and PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per contract, in
addition to the actual transaction fee, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee to
all orders routed to NOM or PHLX in addition to the transaction fee
assessed by that market.
    With respect to routing Customer orders to all other away markets
(except NOM and PHLX) the Exchange believes that amending the Customer
Routing Fee from $0.20 to $0.22 per contract, in addition to the actual
transaction fee assessed) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange would assess the same fee to all Customer orders
routed to away markets, provided the away market does not pay a rebate.
The Exchange believes that increasing the Routing Fee to away markets
(other than NOM and PHLX), when the away market pays a rebate, from
$0.10 to $0.12 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Customer orders routed to away markets
(other than NOM and PHLX) would be assessed the same fee, provided the
away market paid a rebate.
    The Exchange would uniformly assess a $0.12 per contract Fixed Fee
to orders routed to NASDAQ OMX exchanges because the Exchange is
passing along the saving realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's
infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders are
routed to NOM or PHLX and is providing those savings to all market
participants. Furthermore, it is important to note that when orders are
routed to an away market they are routed based on price first.\10\ The
Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
to assess a fixed cost of $0.12 per contract to route orders to NOM and
PHLX because the cost, in terms of actual cash outlays, to the Exchange
to route to those markets is lower. For example, costs related to
routing to NOM and PHLX are lower as compared to other away markets
because NES is utilized by all three exchanges to route orders.\11\ NES
and the three NASDAQ OMX options markets have a common data center and
staff that are responsible for the day-to-day operations of NES.
Because the three exchanges are in a common data center, Routing Fees
are reduced because costly expenses related to, for example,
telecommunication lines to obtain connectivity are avoided when routing
orders in this instance. The costs related to connectivity to route
orders to other NASDAQ OMX exchanges are lower than the costs to route
to a non-NASDAQ OMX exchange. When routing orders to non-NASDAQ OMX
exchanges, the Exchange incurs costly connectivity charges related to
telecommunication lines, membership and access fees, and other related
costs when routing orders. Market participants may submit orders to the
Exchange as ineligible for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing
Fees.\12\ Also, orders are routed to an away market based on price
first.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order Routing).
    \11\ See Chapter VI, Section 11 of the NOM and BX Rules and PHLX
Rule 1080(m)(iii).
    \12\ See note 11.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because the
Exchange is applying the same Routing Fee increase of $0.02 per
contract to all market participants. The Exchange will continue to
assess separate Customer Routing Fees. Customers will continue to
receive the lowest fees as compared to Non-Customers when routing
orders, as is the case today. Other options exchanges also assess lower
Routing Fees for customer orders as compared to non-customer
orders.\14\ Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as
ineligible for routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees.\15\ Also,
orders are routed to an away market based on price first.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ BATS assesses lower customer routing fees as compared to
non-customer routing fees per the away market. For example BATS
assesses Phlx customer routing fees of $0.45 per contract and an ISE
non-customer routing fee of $0.65 per contract. See BATS BZX
Exchange Fee Schedule.
    \15\ See note 11.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to
recoup its costs when routing both Non-Customer and Customer orders.
The Exchange continues to pass along savings realized by leveraging
NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when
Customer orders are routed to NOM and PHLX and is providing those
savings to all market participants. Today, other options exchanges also
assess fixed routing fees to recoup costs incurred by the exchange to
route orders to away markets.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2014-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-026. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-026 and
should be submitted on or before June 20, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12519 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 27340]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1961-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1961-DR), dated March 23, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of March 23, 2011.

    Buchanan and Pike Counties for Public Assistance.
    Buchanan and Pike Counties for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance
program, for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to
the incident period.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-11510 Filed 5-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


________________________________________________________________________
______

Supporting Statement

Ambient Oxides of Nitrogen Monitoring Regulations:

Revisions to Network Design Requirements

EPA ICR # 2358.02

PART A

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

     	   	 (a) Title of the Information Collection

Ambient Oxides of Nitrogen Monitoring Regulations:  Revisions to Network
Design Requirements, EPA ICR Number 2358.02, OMB Control Number 2060-NEW

 	 (b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	This Information Collection Request (ICR) includes ambient air
monitoring data reporting and recordkeeping activities associated with
the 40 CFR part 58 Ambient Air Quality Surveillance regulations.  These
data and information are collected by State, local, and Tribal air
quality management agencies and reported to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

	The EPA is revising the network design requirements for the oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2), to support the
proposed changes to the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for NO2.  Presently, States (including the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) and local agencies when delegated
by the State are required to operate minimum numbers of EPA-approved NO2
monitors based on the population of each of their Core Based Statistical
Areas (CBSA) and the traffic related metrics including Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT) of all the road segments in their CBSAs.

EPA is proposing a two-tiered monitoring network design. The two tiers
are designed to: 1) monitor in areas of expected maximum 1-hour
concentrations; and 2) monitor to characterize areas with the highest
expected NO2 concentrations at the neighborhood and larger spatial
scales, or “area-wide” scales.  The proposed network design
corresponds to the revised NAAQS based on peak 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations, or 1-hour NAAQS, with a level of 100 parts per billion
(ppb), and the retention of the current annual averaged NAAQS which has
a level of 53 ppb. The introduction of the 1-hour NAAQS is intended to
protect against peak, shorter term exposure risks. These exposure risks
have been found to be of particular interest in the on-road and
near-road environments due to on-road mobile source emissions, which led
to the proposed minimum monitoring requirements to include near-road
monitors to be included in the first tier of the network design.

In the first tier of the NO2 network design, EPA is finalizing minimum
NO2 monitoring requirements which call for monitors near major roads,
“near-road NO2 monitors,” in certain CBSAs to address on-road mobile
source emission derived exposures. Specifically, the minimum monitoring
requirements are for one near-road NO2 monitor to be placed in CBSAs of
populations greater than or equal to 500,000 persons.  A second
near-road NO2 monitor is required in CBSAs of populations greater than
or equal to 2,500,000 persons, or any CBSA with one or more roadway
segments that have 250,000 or greater AADT volumes

The first tier of the proposed NO2 network design is anticipated to
require 126 near road monitoring sites, which largely do not exist in
the current monitoring network. Therefore, we recognize that there will
likely be a need for capital funding to allow most, if not all, of the
required near-road monitoring sites to be established. The establishment
costs of monitoring sites can include property access or leasing fees,
power and telecom services, site security, a climate controlled
monitoring shelter, pollutant analyzers, supporting quality assurance
hardware and consumables, and data collection and dissemination hardware
and software.

In the second tier of the monitoring network design, we are requiring a
minimum number of monitors to characterize an area or areas within CBSAs
with highest expected NO2 concentrations at the neighborhood and larger
(area-wide) spatial scales. Specifically, we are proposing to require
one area-wide monitoring site in each CBSA with a population greater
than or equal to 1,000,000, which shall be sited to represent an area of
maximum concentration at the neighborhood or larger spatial scales. This
minimum monitoring requirement is expected to trigger 52 monitoring
sites in as many CBSAs. Many of these monitors are likely already in
place as part of the approximately 400 NO2 monitoring sites that are
currently operating across the country that serve multiple monitoring
objective aside from NAAQS comparisons, including ambient photochemical
pollutant assessment, aiding in ozone forecasting, aiding in PM
precursor analysis and PM forecasting, and to characterize point and
area sources that may be impacting certain communities. Further, the EPA
is allowing any current photochemical assessment monitoring station
(PAMS) sites that are situated to address the highest NO2 concentrations
in an urban area at neighborhood or urban scales to satisfy this
proposed area-wide monitoring requirement. Therefore, this tier of the
proposed network design is not anticipated to increase the number of
monitoring sites above what is already operating in the current network.

In addition, EPA has also recognized that susceptible and vulnerable
populations, which include asthmatics and disproportionately exposed
groups (as discussed in sections II.B.4 and II.F.4.d of the preamble to
the final rule) are at particular risk of NO2-related health effects.
The Administrator is therefore requiring the Regional Administrators,
working in collaboration with states, to site 40 monitors in appropriate
locations, focusing primarily on protecting susceptible and vulnerable
communities.  Further, Regional Administrators may  also use  their
discretionary authority to require monitoring above the minimum
requirements as necessary to address situations inside or outside of
CBSAs in which (1) the required near-road monitors do not represent all
locations of expected maximum hourly NO2 concentrations in an area and
NO2 concentrations may be approaching or exceeding the NAAQS in that
area; (2) areas that are not required to have a monitor in accordance
with the monitoring requirements and NO2 concentrations may be
approaching or exceeding the NAAQS; or (3) the minimum monitoring
requirements for area-wide monitors are not sufficient to meet
monitoring objectives.

The total number of monitors being minimally required in this rulemaking
is estimated to be 218. EPA and others (e.g., State, local, and Tribal
air quality management agencies, environmental groups, academic
institutions, and industrial groups) use the data from the monitoring
network for many purposes.  Some of the more prominent uses include
informing the public and other interested parties of an area’s air
quality, judging an area’s (e.g., county, city, neighborhood) air
quality in comparison with the established health or welfare standards
(including both nationationnal and local standards), evaluating an air
quality management agency’s progress in achieving or maintaining air
pollutant levels below the national and local standards, developing and
revising State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in accordance with 40 CFR
part 51, evaluating air pollutant control strategies, developing or
revising national control policies, providing data for air quality model
development and validation, supporting enforcement actions, documenting
episodes and initiating episode controls, air quality trends assessment,
and air pollution research.

The State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies with
responsibility for reporting ambient air quality data and information as
requested in this ICR submit these data electronically to the EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) and AIRNow databases.  Quality assurance/quality
control records and monitoring network documentation are also maintained
by each State, local, and Tribal agency, in AQS electronic format where
possible.

	Although the State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
are responsible for the operation of the air monitoring networks, the
EPA funds a portion of the total costs through federal grants.  Some of
these grants require an appropriate level of contribution, or
“match,” from the State/local air quality management agencies.  The
costs shown in this ICR are the total costs incurred for the monitoring
program regardless of the source of the funding.

	For the purpose of this ICR, we have estimated the maximum potential
burden for the options being considered.  The ICR estimates for the
final rule will present the burden estimate based on the requirements
contained in the final rule.  The burden estimates are for the 3-year
period of 2010 2011 through 20122013.

	This Information Collection is estimated to involve 142 respondents for
a total approximate cost of $5,726,9793,261,007 (total capital, and
labor and operation and maintenance)

                            and a total burden of 136,99349,474 hours.
The labor costs associated with these hours is $2,957737,174485. The
operations and maintenance costs are $349,716661,960 and equipment and
contract costs are $2,420,088289,002. In addition to the costs at the
State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies, there is a
burden to EPA of total of 5,431 hours and $ 390,054.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

	(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

The information requirements included within this ICR are necessary to
provide the EPA with ambient air quality surveillance data to determine
the United States‘ air quality status, to make attainment decisions
with respect to the NAAQS, to assist in developing necessary control
strategies to ensure attainment of the NAAQS, to assess national trends
in air pollution, to inform the public of air quality, and to determine
the population’s exposure to various ambient air pollutants.  The
EPA’s goal of attaining the NAAQS in all areas of the United States is
directly dependent upon the availability of ambient air quality data
requested in this information collection.  Additionally, the EPA, State,
local, and Tribal air quality management agencies, environmental groups,
industrial groups, and academic organizations use these data to study
atmospheric chemistry, e.g., the formation and fate of NO2, to determine
the most appropriate and effective control strategies necessary to
reduce air pollution.

The principal legal authority for this information collection is the
Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C.A. Sections 7403, 7410, and 7511a, from which the
40 CFR part 58 regulations were promulgated.

Under Section 7403 (c), the Administrator is required to conduct a
program of research, testing, and development of methods for sampling,
measurement, monitoring, analysis, and modeling of air pollutants,
specifically including a requirement to establish a national network to
monitor, collect, and compile data with quantification of certainty in
the status and trends of air emissions and air quality.  This program
will also include the development of improved methods and technologies
to increase understanding of the sources of nitrogen oxides, its
formation, transport, regional influences and trends, and interactions
with other pollutants.

Section 7410 (a) contains the SIP requirements, which include a
requirement that each State submit a SIP that provides for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, analyze, and make
available to the Administrator data on ambient air quality.

Section 7511a (c)(1) states that the Administrator will promulgate rules
requiring that State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
conduct enhanced monitoring of ozone and its precursors (oxides of
nitrogen and volatile organic compounds) in serious, severe, or extreme
ozone nonattainment areas.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) uses the
ambient air quality data included within this collection to make
attainment decisions with respect to each air pollutant subject to
NAAQS.  For those areas that do not attain the NAAQS for one or more
pollutants, the OAQPS, the affected EPA Regional Office, and the
affected State or local air quality management agency will work to
develop an appropriate SIP to address how the area(s air quality can be
improved to meet the applicable NAAQS.

To identify how the nation is progressing in improving air quality, the
OAQPS prepares annually the National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
report (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends) using the ambient air quality data
collected through this ICR.  The State, local, and Tribal air quality
management agencies use these data for multiple purposes including
tracking their progress toward achieving and maintaining air quality
within the established NAAQS and any statewide standards they have
established.  For example, the State of California has established a
separate statewide ozone air quality standard that is more stringent
than the NAAQS for ozone; therefore, they use ambient air data to
determine compliance with both standards.

3.  NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non-duplication

This collection is not unnecessarily duplicative of information
otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency.  The AQS and AIRNow
systems, which contain information based solely on this collection, are
the only national air quality data repositories available to the EPA.
The ambient air quality surveillance data and related information
collected through this information collection are not otherwise
reasonably accessible to the EPA.

A few State and local air quality management agencies have their own
data storage systems (e.g., the California Air Resources Board);
however, most State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
use the AQS and AIRNow as their primary repositories for all air quality
data.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act requires that any agency developing a
non-rule related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60-day period
prior to submitting the ICR to OMB.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This section
is not applicable to this ICR because this is a rule-related ICR.

3(c) Consultations

	Through the course of planning, monitoring, and improving upon this
collection and its associated regulation, the EPA regularly consults
with affected State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
through various methods including the regulatory process, regular
meetings, and training courses.  The EPA conducts annual work shops and
training on the AQS reporting system, e.g., the annual AQS Conference.
The EPA Regional Offices conduct annual ambient air monitoring meetings
with their affected State, local, and Tribal air quality management
agencies to assist these affected agencies with this collection and its
associated regulation.  The EPA’s OAQPS also meets regularly with
leading State and local air monitoring managers to discuss the
Nation’s ambient air monitoring program and this collection, via large
monthly phone calls and smaller in person meeting two or three times per
year.  Starting in 1999, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) established the subcommittee on fine particle monitoring to
provide advice to EPA on various implementation aspects of the PM
monitoring networks.  In addition, CASAC also has established a
monitoring strategy subcommittee to extend consultation to the entire
network.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies would collect
and report ambient air quality data without the 40 CFR 58 regulations
associated with this collection.  Sanctions do not automatically accrue
to State or local air quality management agencies that fail to meet
these requirements.  The 40 CFR part 58 regulations and this associated
collection do provide for a consistent system for reporting and record
keeping that would not exist without these requirements.  The effects of
less frequent collection include:

• 	A national database that is not consistently updated and available
for public consumption;

• 	Less timely attainment designations with respect to the NAAQS;

• 	More difficultly in identifying and repairing problems with an
ambient air monitor--i.e., data are used as to check a monitor’s
operating condition, and reporting data less frequently would delay a
State or local agency’s ability to recognize a problem with a monitor
or a laboratory procedure; and

• 	The EPA would not be able to consistently answer questions from the
public in a timely fashion regarding air quality in various areas of the
country.

3(e) General Guidelines

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 All of the OMB’s general guidelines for
information collections in 5 CFR 1320.6 are met by this ICR.  None of
the guidelines are exceeded.

• 	Data reporting on a quarterly basis is the requirement.  Nearly all
respondents voluntarily report on a monthly basis.

•	Record retention is for no more than 3 years (most records are kept
by the EPA data repository, not the affected State, local, and Tribal
air quality management agencies)

•	Information is maintained and reported in the standardized
electronic AQS format.

3(f) Confidentiality

Information that is considered personal, private, proprietary, or
confidential is not required for this collection.  One purpose of
collecting ambient air data through AQS and AIRNow is to inform the
public of general air quality in ambient air (air considered generally
accessible to the public), and as such, does not present a need for
maintaining a confidential nature.  Security measures are taken to
prevent tampering with the AQS electronic database by limiting the
access to the AQS mainframe only to authorized users

3(g) Sensitive Questions

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This section is not applicable to this ICR
because no information involving matters of a sensitive nature is
collected.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/SIC Codes

This ICR affects State, local, and Tribal governments (SIC code 951,
Administration of Environmental Quality Program) that are currently
operating and maintaining established ambient air quality networks.  The
40 CFR part 58 regulations associated with this request require that
State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies conduct the
ambient air quality surveillance and report the data to the EPA’s AQS.
 Although industrial, environmental, and research organizations may use
the data available through the AQS, they are not required to report any
information for this information collection.  Data submittal to AIRNow
is voluntary for all organizations, but most State and local agencies
reporting to AQS also report to AIRNow.

4(b) Information Requested

(i)  Data items, including record keeping requirements

	These data items are submitted electronically to EPA’s AQS as
required by 40 CFR part 58.   These data are stored electronically
within the EPA’s AQS, and separate records kept by the State or local
air quality management agency are not required.

•	Hourly ambient air pollutant concentrations of NO, NO2, and total
NOX collected at SLAMS/PAMS and tribal sites.

•	Precision and accuracy data for all SLAMS sites, PAMS, and Special
Purpose Monitors (SPM).

•	SLAMS monitoring network description information, including the site
AQS identification number, site location, sampling and analysis method,
operating schedule, monitoring objective, site’s scale of
representation, identity of the urban area represented, and quality
assurance plan.

•	Results of the annual ambient air monitoring network and quality
assurance plan review.

•	Annual SLAMS summary report which includes the location, date,
pollution source, and duration of each incident of air pollution during
which ambient levels of a pollutant reached or exceeded the significant
harm levels as defined in 40 CFR 51.151, the certification of the
report’s accuracy by a designated State air pollution control officer,
and various other summary statistics as provided by the AQS system.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

A model respondent would engage in the following activities to comply
with this information request:

•	Read the 40 CFR part 58 regulatory provisions and other EPA guidance
(for example, please reference our Internet site at
www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic.)

•	Plan ambient air monitoring activities, such as developing a quality
assurance plan for the network operation and maintenance, developing and
reviewing the ambient air quality surveillance network design, planning
where to locate sites, plan how to maintain and operate each site,
develop a data reporting and validation plan.

•	Write the quality assurance plan for network operation and
maintenance, the ambient air quality surveillance network plan, and the
data reporting and validation plan.  Submit these plans to the EPA
Regional or Headquarters office for review, and approval if appropriate.

•	Obtain on-site leases or agreements to locate ambient air quality
surveillance equipment.

•	Investigate vendors, and procure equipment necessary to meet the
ambient air quality network plan.

•	Receive training for site operation and maintenance, quality
assurance procedures, and data processing and reporting.

•	Make arrangements for appropriate utility hookups for each ambient
air quality surveillance site, i.e., electricity, telephones, data lines
for electronic submission of concentrations from automated analyzers.

•	Install ambient air quality surveillance equipment and equipment
shelter.  Ensure security of the site.

•	Conduct ambient air quality monitoring, incorporating all
appropriate quality assurance procedures such as calibrations, precision
and accuracy checks, and, if necessary, concurrent monitoring.

•	Validate the ambient air data for quality assurance considerations.

•	Electronically submit the complete and validated ambient air data to
the AQS and/or AIRNow data repositories.

•	Prepare and submit to EPA annually the SLAMS sites summary report.

Each of these activities are conducted using existing reporting and
recordkeeping practices, including electronic submittal to the AQS and
to AIRNow .  If the 40 CFR part 58 regulations did not exist, and
presumably the related AQS and AIRNow, the quality assurance procedures,
and the siting guidance did not exist, the State, local, and Tribal air
quality management agencies would in a majority of cases conduct
monitoring; however, methods used by each agency would vary and data
would not be readily available to EPA and the public.  The influence of
the 40 CFR part 58 regulations has been to provide a nationally
consistent mechanism for collecting ambient air quality data including
uniform quality assurance procedures, data collection and storage
mediums (AQS), and uniform methodology.  Without this regulations and
associated ICR, managing and maintaining a national air quality program
would be extremely difficult, if possible.

5.  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

The EPA conducts the following activities to implement this ICR and
associated regulation:

•	Periodically review the 40 CFR part 58 regulations to update the
information collection and monitoring requirements in light of new
technological developments or new air pollutant standards.  Develop
revisions to the regulations in response to legislative action and
program changes.

•	Establish, maintain, and support the AQS and AIRNow as the national
repositories for all State, local, and Tribal air quality management
agency ambient air quality data and monitoring information.
Periodically evaluate and improve upon this system as new technologies,
and new regulatory requirements would dictate.

•	Answer respondent (generally State, local, and Tribal air quality
management agencies, but also industrial organizations, environmental
groups, and others) questions about ambient air monitoring, the 40 CFR
part 58 regulatory requirements, and the AQS and AIRNow.  This includes
the establishment of the Ambient Monitoring Technology Information
Center bulletin board, the AQS toll-free hotline, and other written or
verbal communication.

•	Support the quality assurance program by working within the EPA and
with the respondents to evaluate precision and accuracy data, oversee
the National Performance Audit Program, participate in systems audits,
and conduct data validation checks on the AQS data submittal.

•	Provide within the AQS mechanisms for statistical calculations, such
as the number of times a particular ambient air quality monitoring site
exceeds the NAAQS.  Distribute the AQS data in various ways including
upon written request, by Freedom of Information Act request, by press
release, and in the annual National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Report.

•	Provide adequate electronic storage space within the AQS for all
ambient air quality surveillance data and information.

•	Provide various reports and graphics for users of AIRNow.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

All State, local, and Tribal ambient air monitoring networks have access
to and use well-established quality assurance procedures as defined in
the Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems,
Volumes I and II, EPA/600/R-94/038a & b.  These documents ensure that
all ambient air quality data are accurate and reliable.

The EPA has provided and will continue to provide resources for the
maintenance and operation of the AQS and AIRNow national data
repositories.  All data required by this collection are submitted
electronically to reduce the burden of the collection and to improve
data quality, agency efficiency, and responsiveness to the public.
Various statistical and graphical summaries are also provided by the AQS
and AIRNow systems which enhance the utility of the information for
consumption by the public and all affected State, local, and Tribal air
quality management agencies.  In submitting ambient air data into the
AQS and AIRNow national repositories, we ensure that the data are
publicly available, electronically stored, and electronically
retrievable.  State, local, and Tribal air quality management agencies
and the EPA have been submitting data to the AQS since its inception in
1987.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

This collection contains a minimum amount of information in order to
manage the air quality program for the United States.  The smallest
entities affected by this collection are local air quality management
agencies, typically consisting of the governing agencies for a county or
group of counties, or a smaller metropolitan area (e.g., cities with a
population of 350,000).  This collection reduces to the extent
practicable and appropriate the burden on entities that provide ambient
air quality data and information to or for the EPA, including with
respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:

•	Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that account for the resources available to those who are to
respond (e.g., the monitoring and reporting requirements decrease as the
population of an area decreases, and various timetables for deploying
ambient air monitoring stations are negotiated between the affected
State or local air quality management agency and the EPA with
consideration of the respondent’s resources);

•	Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements (e.g., by establishing, maintaining, and
improving as needed the AQS and AIRNow national repositories for ambient
air quality data and information);

•	Exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any
part thereof (e.g., the EPA negotiates with State, local, and Tribal air
quality management agencies to determine the most effective and most
efficient ambient air quality networks with respect to the monitoring
needs, technical abilities, and resources available to each affected
agency).

5(d) Collection Schedule

Ambient air quality surveillance data and precision and accuracy data
for criteria air pollutants are submitted according to the schedule
defined in 40 CFR 58.16.  These current regulations require that State
and local air quality management agencies report their data within 90
days after the end of the quarter during which the data were collected.

The annual SLAMS report is submitted by July 1 of each year for data
collected from January 1 through December 31 of the previous year in
accordance with 40 CFR 58.15.  This certification applies to all SLAMS
and all SPM monitoring data that have been submitted by July 1.

The annual air quality surveillance network reviews are conducted and
reports are submitted to the EPA on a schedule that is determined by the
affected State or local air quality management agency and the EPA
Regional Office.

Ambient air quality data and information are made available to the
public at any time in various ways, including:

•	Upon request to the appropriate EPA Regional office, or to the
OAQPS;

•	By Freedom of Information Act Request to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office or the OAQPS;

•	From the State or local air quality management agency responsible
for collecting the ambient air quality data and information;

•	By obtaining access, through appropriate EPA channels, to the AQS
and AIRNow to obtain the data electronically;

•	Through EPA public reports, such as the annual “National Air
Quality and Emissions Trends Report”; or

•	Through the AIRNow data base and the AQI reporting mechanisms which
include newspaper, television, Internet and other publicly available
notices (see www.epa.gov/airnow).

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

All activities listed with section 4 (b) (ii) of this ICR Supporting
Statement are presented in  Worksheet 1.  The detailed burden and cost
estimates for the different types of monitors are based on information
provided in the updated version of Guidance for Estimating Ambient Air
Monitoring Costs for Criteria Pollutants and Selected Air Toxic
Pollutants (prepared by Desert Research Institute for the EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Ambient Air Monitoring Group, January 2005).  The cost estimates
presented in this guidance document are based on existing literature and
direct monitoring experience.  The costs for equipment and supplies were
verified with vendors.  The monitoring costs are based on vendor quotes
for the monitor type that EPA expects respondents to use to comply with
the requirements.  Costs for level of effort estimates are verified with
selected State and local agencies.  All cost values presented in the
guidance document are adjusted to 2004 dollars, based on the average of
the first two quarters.

	For use in preparing the burden estimates for this ICR, costs for the
monitoring requirements were inflated to 20101, 20112012, and 20122013.
The cost escalation factors were estimated based on the appropriate
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price indices as reported in the report
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.jsc."  http://www.jsc.
nasa.gov/bu2/inflateGDP.html .  Tables showing the detailed burden
estimate calculations are presented below.  A summary of the average
annual respondent burden costs follows.

Worksheet 1:  Annual Average Respondent Burden Estimates

Collection

Activities	Total Labor Hours

Per Respondent Per Year

(142 respondents)

1.  Network design	4

2.  Site installation	3

3.  Sampling & analysis	94

4.  Maintenance & repairs	67

5.  Data management	38

6.  Quality assurance	108

7.  Supervision	33

TOTAL	 347

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

All activities listed with section 4 (b) (ii) of this ICR Supporting
Statement are included in the Worksheet 2. A summary of the average
annual respondent burden costs follows.

Worksheet 2:  Annual Average Respondent Cost Estimates

Collection

Activities	Total Labor Cost

Per Respondent Per Year

(142 respondents)

1.  Network design	$278

2.  Site installation	$2180

3.  Sampling & analysis	$4874

4.  Maintenance & repairs	$4662

5.  Data management	$2223

6.  Quality assurance	$6776

7.  Supervision	$1961

TOTAL	$22,954

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

We estimated the Agency burden and cost by using current burden and cost
of the ambient air monitoring program related to this collection.  We
included burden and cost for the OAQPS, the ten Regional Offices, and
associated contract activities.  The in-house activities for this
collection are completed by a variety of individuals with a variety of
salaries; therefore, we used the actual salary as an average for
computing the program costs.  Actual contractor expenses were used for
those activities completed using extramural resources.  We estimated a
total of 5,431 hours and $390,054 total agency burden.

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Worksheet 3 shows the total respondent hourly burdens and costs which
was taken from section 6(b) above for the estimated 142 respondents.
The total labor burden for the respondents was estimated to be 49,474
hours at a total cost of $2,737,485.

Worksheet 3:  Annual Total Respondent Labor Burden/Cost Estimates

Collection

 Activities	Total Labor Hours

Per Year	Total Labor Cost

Per Year

1.  Network design	642	$40,932

2.  Site installation	477	$20,540

3.  Sampling & analysis	13,340	$587,876

4.  Maintenance & repairs	9,560	$531,671

5.  Data management	5,447	$315,730

6.  Quality assurance	15,339	$962,205

7.  Supervision	4,669	$278,532

TOTAL	49,474	$2,737,485

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

 (i)  Respondent Tally

Respondent Total Annual Burden = 49,474 hours

Respondent Total Annual Labor Cost = $2,737,485

Respondent Total Annual Cost for O & M = $234,520

Respondent Total Equipment/Contract Dollars = $289,002

Total Respondent Tally = $3,261,007

(ii) The Agency Tally

Agency Total Annual Burden = 5,431 hours

Agency Total Annual Cost = $390,054

(iii) Variations In The Annual Bottom Line.

We do not expect any significant variations in the annual bottom line
for the ambient air monitoring networks for the clearance period
requested.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

	EPA is proposing to revise the network design requirements for NO2 to
support changes to the primary national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for NO2 that are being proposed.  For the purpose of this, ICR
we have estimated the maximum potential burden for the options being
considered in the proposed rule.  The ICR burden estimates are
associated with the current NO2 monitoring portion of the approved ICR
2060-0084 – “Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.”

6(g) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 22 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; 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 allow 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 established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. OAR-2008-0338 which has been available for public viewing at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
 The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
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.  The public was also
advised to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.

PART B OF SUPPORTING STATEMENT

This section is not applicable to this ICR because statistical methods
are not used in the data collection associated with the rule amendments.

 PAGE   15

 PAGE   15


[Federal Register: December 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 68081-68082]
[DOCID:fr22de09-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61171; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 5160 (Disclosure of Price and Concessions in Selling
Agreements) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

December 15, 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 December 2, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 2770 (Disclosure of Price in
Selling Agreements) as FINRA Rule 5160 in the consolidated FINRA
rulebook without material change.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''), \3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 2770 (Disclosure of Price in Selling Agreements), without material
change, as FINRA Rule 5160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2770 requires certain disclosures in selling
agreements.\4\ Specifically, the rule requires that selling syndicate
agreements or selling group agreements \5\ (1) set forth the price at
which securities are to be sold to the public or the formula by which
such price can be ascertained and (2) state clearly to whom and under
what circumstances concessions, if any, may be allowed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 2770, formerly designated as Section 7 in Article III
of the Rules of Fair Practice, was adopted in 1939 as part of
FINRA's original rulebook. See Certificate of Incorporation and
Bylaws, Rules of Fair Practice and Code of Procedure for Handling
Trade Practice Complaints of National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (August 8, 1939). The precursor to NASD Rule 2770 was
originally drafted by the Investment Bankers Code Committee in 1934.
See Code of Fair Competition for Investment Bankers With a
Descriptive Analysis of Its Fair Practice Provisions and a History
of Its Preparation (1934).
    \5\ The terms ``selling group'' and ``selling syndicate'' are
defined in NASD Rules 0120(p) and (q), respectively. (Other than to
reflect the new conventions of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook,
FINRA does not propose to alter these two definitions, which will be
addressed later in the rulebook consolidation process.)
    \6\ Pursuant to FINRA Rule 0150, NASD Rule 2770 is applicable to
transactions in, and business activities relating to, exempted
securities, except municipal securities, conducted by members and
associated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is customary industry practice that both of these items are
contained in selling agreements. FINRA believes that these disclosures
are important in ensuring the integrity of the public offering process.
Specifically, the requirement to set forth the price at which the
securities are to be sold to the public creates a contractual
obligation among the selling group participants to offer the security
to investors at the same price. The second requirement to set forth to
whom and under what circumstances concessions, if any, are allowed
gives the selling syndicate or selling group control over who may be
compensated for participating in the offering.
    NASD Rule 2770 has not been substantively amended since it was
adopted in 1939. FINRA believes that Rule 2770's application and scope
are clear and that the rule is achieving its intended purpose as part
of FINRA's regulatory scheme governing member activity in securities
offerings. FINRA proposes to transfer NASD Rule 2770 into the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook without material change as new FINRA Rule
5160. However, FINRA proposes one minor change to the title of the rule
to clarify that in addition to disclosing the price of a security in an
offering, selling agreements must also disclose

concessions. The proposed title of FINRA Rule 5160 would be
``Disclosure of Price and Concessions in Selling Agreements.''
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the disclosures required by the
proposed rule are important in ensuring the integrity of the public
offering process. In addition, the rule being adopted as part of the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook previously has been found to meet the
statutory requirements, and FINRA believes this rule has since proven
effective in achieving the statutory mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-086 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-FINRA-2009-086. 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\8\, 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 .C. 552, will be available
for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S you
wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File
Number SR-FINRA-2009-086 and should be submitted on or before January
12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30335 Filed 12-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22486-22487]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2153-043]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application for License Amendment
    b. Project No.: 2153-043
    c. Date Filed: April 4, 2014
    d. Applicants: United Water Conservation District (licensee)
    e. Name of Project: Santa Felicia
    f. Location: Piru Creek in Ventura County, CA
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Catherine McCalvin, United Water
Conservation District, 106 North Eighth Street, Santa Paula, CA 93060.
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. John Aedo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission (May 14, 2014). The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests,
comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-
2153-043) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or
recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to amend license article 403, which contains the minimum flow
requirements for the project. The licensee proposes to instead,
implement the flow regime developed with the National Marine Fisheries
Service in its 2012 Water Release Plan. In addition, the licensee
proposes to exempt the whitewater boating access requirements of its
project license during any increased water releases over 200 cubic feet
per second occurring between January 1 and May 1. The licensee requests
this access limitation in order to avoid adverse impacts to steelhead
in Piru Creek. Finally, the licensee's application contains a water
quality certification from the California State Water Resources Control
Board, which in addition to approving the revised flow regime, requires
that the licensee develop a dissolved oxygen monitoring plan.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to

which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09070 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P