Summary of EPA Meeting with Duratherm

August 7, 2007

On Tuesday, August 7, OSW staff met with Duratherm and its
representative to discuss their concerns with the DSW proposal and other
EPA rules. Barry Hogan of Duratherm explained his company’s principal
operations (recovery of materials from petroleum refinery wastes using
indirect thermal desorption).  Duratherm tests the wastes extensively
and Barry stated that it is usually more familiar with the wastes than
most petroleum refineries.  They have a RCRA Part B permit.  Barry H.
stated that recycling is actually a form of waste management.  Although
it should be encouraged and is environmentally preferable to landfilling
or incineration, recyling often needs regulatory oversight to protect
human health and the environment, he averred.  He then discussed the
regulatory exclusion for wastes inserted as feedstocks into the
petroleum refining process.  He stated that the exclusion would probably
be ultimately beneficial, but that a gradual loosening of the criteria
(such as when materials are inserted into the refining process) may have
sometimes led to materials of low value being recycled, so that the
recycling  process was actually of dubious legitimacy.   He also stated
that residuals would end up in petroleum coke, which would be shipped to
other countries for burning because such burning would be infeasible
here due to CAA controls.  Mark Eads said that we were beginning to
address such issues in our life-cycle analyses, but that such analyses
are currently difficult to do.

He said that generators may send materials to an excluded recycler not
because it is cheaper but because they don’t have to do TRI reporting.
 He said that making TRI requirements more dependent on what most people
think of as actual releases would help address that problem.  OSW stated
that we would not be able to address TRI issues in this rulemaking.

Barry then said that any exclusions should provide “visibility”
(preferably through conditions) so that the facilities would not slip
off the radar screen of regulators and the public.  Leigh Ing mentioned
the fertilizer rule as an example of useful conditions, especially the
constituent limits. OSW agreed, but said that such limits would be much
more difficult to establish in a rule covering many different types of
wastestreams.  Barry mentioned that financial assurance was particularly
important for excluded recyclers, because lack of regulation could lead
to overextension and possible financial problems, so that cash in the
bank for closure should be available in case markets change.  He stated
that economics should play a large part in deciding whether recycling
was legitimate, but acknowledged that developing an economic “test”
would be difficult or impossible.  He said that the ideal situation
would be a sort of “RCRA lite” for recycling facilities, and that
uniform conditions would be preferable for all facilities doing waste
management involving UTS standards, so that a level playing field could
be created.

In response to a question from Leigh Ing, OSW said that the purpose of
the rule was to increase cost-effective recycling while maintaining
protection of human health and the environment, and also to respond to
various court cases.  Leigh expressed concern that over time, the rule
could lead to problems caused by inexperienced operators entering the
recycling arena and hence reduced environmental protection.  Barry said
that we may not have examined fully the potential impacts of the rule on
currently permitted facilities.  Mark Eads said that this issue was
addressed to a certain extent in the RIA, and also that it might be
possible for permitted facilities to accept excluded waste by changing
capacity or by some other measures.

Barry and Leigh both asked about the possibility that the final DSW rule
could cover burning for energy recovery and use constituting disposal.
if OSW said that we would need to get input from OGC on whether we could
finalize those provisions.  We also said that there would be a push to
get the rule finalized before any administration change, so that might
make it harder to address technically difficult issues.  We said that if
Duratherm continued to be concerned about the impact of this rule on
permitted facilities and the potential for environmental harm, they
could consider setting up a meeting at the political level. Leigh said
she would let us know if Duratherm decided to take that approach.  She
also stated that OSW should call her if we had any questions about
“real world” issues regarding Duratherm’s operations.

Attendees were:

OSW:  Marilyn Goode, Dave Fagan, MaryBeth Sheridan, Ross Elliott, Amy
Lile, Amanda Geldard, Mark Eads

Duratherm:  Barry Hogan

Leigh Ing Consulting:  Leigh Ing, representing Duratherm


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54534-54537]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16966]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0608; FRL-10387-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; FL; Noninterference Demonstrations for Removal
of CAIR and Obsolete Rules in the Florida SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a portion of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
on April 1, 2022, for the purpose of removing several rules from the
Florida SIP. EPA is proposing to remove the State's Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) rules from the Florida SIP as well as several
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules for particulate
matter (PM) because these rules have become obsolete. The State has
provided a non-interference demonstration to support the removal of
these rules from the Florida SIP pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act).

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0608 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on 62-296.470, F.A.C., Implementation of Federal Clean
Air Interstate Rule

    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which EPA has traditionally
termed the good neighbor provision, States are required to address the
interstate transport of air pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor
provision requires that each State's implementation plan contain
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
State that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
    In 2005, EPA published CAIR to limit the interstate transport of
ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the CAA's
good neighbor provision. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR
originally required twenty-eight eastern States, including Florida, to
submit SIPs prohibiting emissions that exceeded:
    (1) Annual budgets specific to each State for nitrogen oxides
(NOX)--an ozone precursor;
    (2) ozone season budgets specific to each State for NOX;
and
    (3) annual budgets specific to each State for sulfur dioxide
(SO2)--a PM2.5 precursor. CAIR also established
several \1\ trading programs for these pollutants that EPA implemented
through Federal implementation plans (FIPs) for electric generating
units (EGUs) greater than 25 megawatts in each affected State.\2\
However, these trading programs did not apply to large non-EGUs. States
could then submit SIPs to replace the FIPs to achieve the required
emission reductions from EGUs and could choose to opt in non-EGU
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR had separate trading programs for annual SO2
emissions, ozone season NOX emissions, and annual
NOX emissions.
    \2\ For additional background regarding these FIPs, including
details specific to Florida, see Proposed Approval of Implementation
Plans of Florida: Clean Air Interstate Rule, 72 FR 42344 (August 2,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 12, 2007, EPA approved a SIP revision for Florida
implementing the requirements of CAIR. See 72 FR 58016. That revision
to Florida's SIP included Rule 62-296.470, which, as discussed later in
this notice, EPA is now proposing to remove from Florida's SIP as
obsolete.
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The ruling
allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule
consistent with the court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on
developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued to be
implemented with the NOX annual and ozone season trading
programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual trading
program beginning in 2010.
    In response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the good neighbor
provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
CSAPR requires EGUs in many eastern States to meet annual and ozone

season NOX emission budgets and annual SO2
emission budgets implemented through new trading programs.
    CSAPR also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related
obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR
compliance requirements. CSAPR was to become effective January 1, 2012;
however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by a number
of court actions.
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its
implementation, and EPA was ordered to continue administering CAIR on
an interim basis.\3\ In a subsequent decision on the merits, the court
vacated CSAPR based on a subset of petitioners' claims.\4\ However, on
April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and
remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings.\5\
Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the
ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place,
and EPA continued to implement CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
    \4\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013).
    \5\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion
asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to
replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C.
Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from
petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion requested to toll, by three
years, all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the
approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit
granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an
interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as
January 1, 2015, and tolled the implementation of CSAPR Phase 1 to 2015
and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017.
    In accordance with the interim final rule, the sunset date for CAIR
was December 31, 2014, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1,
2015.\6\ However, EPA determined that CSAPR does not apply to Florida
after demonstrating that Florida does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State
with respect to the covered NAAQS. See 81 FR 74505, 74506.\7\ Because
CSAPR replaced CAIR and EPA previously determined that CSAPR does not
apply to Florida, neither of these rules have any applicability in
Florida today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 40 CFR 51.123(ff) (sunsetting CAIR requirements related
to NOX); 40 CFR 51.124(s) (sunsetting CAIR requirements
related to SO2).
    \7\ Additional updates were made to the CSAPR trading program
following its original approval on August 8, 2011, including the
CSAPR Update on October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504) and Revised CSAPR
Update on April 30, 2021 (86 FR 23054) for ozone interstate
transport. These subsequent CSAPR rules continued to demonstrate
that sources in Florida were not significantly contributing to any
maintenance or nonattainment area, therefore, the CSAPR Update and
the Revised CSAPR Update do not apply for the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of the Removal of 62-296.470, F.A.C., Implementation
of Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule

    Rule 62-296.470 was approved by EPA into the Florida SIP on October
12, 2007 (72 FR 58016). Florida repealed this rule on August 14, 2019,
through a State regulatory action because CAIR has sunset and, under
CSAPR, EPA determined that sources in Florida do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other State with respect to the covered NAAQS. The State has now
requested that EPA remove Rule 62-296.470 from the SIP.\8\ EPA proposes
to remove this rule from Florida's SIP because CAIR was remanded and
eventually replaced by the CSAPR which does not apply to Florida. For
these reasons, EPA believes the removal of this rule is appropriate and
consistent with all applicable requirements, including CAA section
110(l).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In Florida's April 1, 2022, submittal, the State includes
other requested SIP revisions that EPA will address in subsequent
rulemakings.
    \9\ CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot ``approve a [SIP
revision] if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress .
. . or any other applicable requirement'' of the CAA. EPA has
reviewed Florida's CAA section 110(l) demonstration and
preliminarily agrees that removal of Rule 62-296.470 is compliant
with CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background on 62-296.701, F.A.C., Portland Cement Plants; 62-
296.703, F.A.C., Carbonaceous Fuel Burners; 62-296.706, F.A.C., Glass
Manufacturing Process; 62-296.709, F.A.C., Lime Kilns; and 62-296.710,
F.A.C., Smelt Dissolving Tanks

    On March 3, 1978, EPA designated all areas of the country for the
1971 total suspended particulates (TSP) NAAQS. Duval, Seminole, Polk,
and Hillsborough Counties in Florida were designated as not meeting the
secondary TSP standards. See 43 FR 8962, 8980 (March 3, 1978). After
several modifications to the designations, EPA determined that portions
of Seminole and Polk Counties were two full-county nonattainment areas
for the 1971 TSP standard.\10\ Because these two areas were in
nonattainment for the 1971 TSP standard, the State was required to
develop and submit to EPA plans to attain the standard, including
reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulations in the
Florida SIP to control TSP. Five of those RACT rules were the
predecessor rules to F.A.C. 62-296.701, 62-296.703, 62-296.706, 62-
296.709, and 62-296.710, which were approved into the Florida SIP on
May 2, 1983 (48 FR 19715).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On September 11, 1978 (43 FR 40412), EPA completed a
modified designation following comment on the March 3, 1978, final
rule, revising the TSP nonattainment areas for Duval and
Hillsborough Counties to be partial counties and changing the
designation of Polk County to ``cannot be classified.'' On April 27,
1979 (44 FR 24845), EPA changed the designation of Seminole County
to ``cannot be classified'' for the TSP NAAQS. On November 18, 1982
(47 FR 51866), EPA changed the designation of part of Duval County
to attainment for the TSP NAAQS.
    \11\ EPA later promulgated standards more stringent than the
prior TSP standards when it adopted the PM10 NAAQS and
the PM2.5 NAAQS. PM10 is particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less, also referred to
as coarse PM; PM2.5 is particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, also referred to as
fine PM. All areas in Florida have been designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the primary and secondary 1987 annual and 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2012
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS is the most recent revision to the suite of PM NAAQS,
published on January 15, 2013. The primary annual standard was
strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) to 12.0
[mu]g/m3. See 78 FR 3086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 1, 1990, as part of implementation of the
PM10 NAAQS, EPA approved portions of Florida's
PM10 SIP. See 55 FR 3403. Additionally, and of relevance to
this Notice, EPA explained that regarding Rule 17-2.650--Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) (state effective May 30, 1988),
``[r]evisions have been made such that RACT for existing sources will
continue to be applied in the areas which are presently nonattainment
for TSP. The portion addressing RACT for new and modified sources has
been rescinded since the areas where this has been applied will have no
classification for PM10.'' Id. at 3406. Rule 17-2.650 was
later recodified to become Rules 62-296.700 through 62-296.712.\12\ In
that same February 1, 1990 rulemaking, EPA designated all remaining TSP
nonattainment areas within Florida as

unclassifiable.\13\ As FDEP notes elsewhere in its SIP submittal in
support of proposed revisions to Rule 62-296.700,\14\ Florida's PM RACT
rules only apply to emission units that have been issued an air permit
on or before May 30, 1988.15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For additional detail, please see the Florida rule history
posted at https://www.flrules.org/. For example, the historical
notes for Rule 62-296.701 are available at https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?id=62-296.701; see also 64 FR 32346 (June 16,
1999).
    \13\ EPA approved a recodification to the 62-296.700 rules on
October 20, 1994 (59 FR 52916).
    \14\ EPA will address revisions to this rule in a separate
notice.
    \15\ On May 19, 1988, Florida submitted revisions to the SIP
regarding particulate matter. The rules submitted under the May 19,
1988, date were state effective on May 30, 1988. In these revisions,
which were approved by EPA on February 1, 1990 (55 FR 3403), EPA
approved Florida's changes to its particulate matter SIP that
clarify what areas of the state were covered by the PM RACT rules
and the location of PM (TSP) air quality maintenance areas and areas
of influence (areas within 50 kilometers outside the boundary of an
air quality maintenance area).
    \16\ EPA will address Florida's proposed updates to F.A.C. 62-
296.700 in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Analysis of the Removal of 62-296.701, F.A.C., Portland
Cement Plants; 62-296.703, F.A.C., Carbonaceous Fuel Burners; 62-
296.706, F.A.C., Glass Manufacturing Process; 62-296.709, F.A.C., Lime
Kilns; and 62-296.710, F.A.C., Smelt Dissolving Tanks

    According to Florida's submittal, there are no longer any units in
the State still in operation covered by Rules 62-296.701, 62-296.703,
62-296.706, 62-296.709, and 62-296.710. Because these rules only apply
to existing sources permitted on or before May 30, 1988, and FDEP
determined that there are no longer any existing sources subject to
these rules, FDEP likewise determined that removing these rules from
the SIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS,
prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further
progress, or protection of visibility. FDEP repealed these rules at the
State level, effective on February 8, 2017. Because these rules only
apply to units that were permitted on or before May 30, 1988, and there
are no longer any existing sources subject to these rules, removing
these rules from the SIP will have no air quality impacts and is
consistent with CAA section 110(l). Therefore, EPA proposes to remove
these obsolete rules from the Florida SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
amended regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. EPA
is proposing to remove Rules 62-296.470, F.A.C., Implementation of
Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule, 62-296.701, F.A.C., Portland Cement
Plants, 62-296.703, F.A.C., Carbonaceous Fuel Burners, 62-296.706,
F.A.C., Glass Manufacturing Process, 62-296.709, F.A.C., Lime Kilns,
and 62-296.710, F.A.C., Smelt Dissolving Tanks from the Florida SIP
which are incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements
of 1 CFR part 51, and as discussed in Sections I through IV of this
preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make the SIP generally
available at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of this
preamble for more information).

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve that portion of the April 1, 2022,
Florida SIP revision consisting of the removal of Rules 62-296.470,
F.A.C., Implementation of Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule, 62-
296.701, Portland Cement Plants, 62-296.703, Carbonaceous Fuel Burners,
62-296.706, Glass Manufacturing Process, 62-296.709, Lime Kilns, and
62-296.710, Smelt Dissolving Tanks, from the Florida SIP.

VII. Statutory and Executive Language

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The FDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Consideration
of EJ is not required as part of this proposal, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

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

Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-16966 Filed 8-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42026-42029]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17332]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67404; File No. SR-ISE-2012-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Fees for Certain Orders Executed on the Exchange

July 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 2,

2012, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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 ISE is proposing to amend transaction fees for certain orders
executed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently assesses a per contract transaction charge
and provides rebates to market participants that add or remove
liquidity from the Exchange (``maker/taker fees and rebates'') in a
number of options classes (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ For removing
liquidity in the Select Symbols, the Exchange currently charges a
``taker'' fee of: (i) $0.28 per contract for Market Maker \4\ and
Market Maker Plus orders,\5\ and (ii) $0.29 per contract for Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) \6\ orders. The Exchange now
proposes to increase the ``taker'' fee for Market Maker and Market
Maker Plus orders in the Select Symbols from $0.28 per contract to
$0.29 per contract, and for Firm Proprietary and Customer
(Professional) orders in the Select Symbols from $0.29 per contract to
$0.30 per contract. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the
``taker'' fee for Non-ISE Market Maker orders or Priority Customer \7\
orders in the Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees and rebates are
identified by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of
Fees.
    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \5\ A Market Maker Plus is an ISE Market Maker who is on the
National Best Bid or National Best Offer 80% of the time for series
trading between $0.03 and $5.00 (for options whose underlying
stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less than or
equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $5.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was
greater than $100) in premium in each of the front two expiration
months and 80% of the time for series trading between $0.03 and
$5.00 (for options whose underlying stock's previous trading day's
last sale price was less than or equal to $100) and between $0.10
and $5.00 (for options whose underlying stock's previous trading
day's last sale price was greater than $100) in premium across all
expiration months in order to receive the rebate. The Exchange
determines whether a Market Maker qualifies as a Market Maker Plus
at the end of each month by looking back at each Market Maker's
quoting statistics during that month. A Market Maker's single best
and single worst overall quoting days each month, on a per symbol
basis, are excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker qualifies
for this rebate, if doing so qualifies a Market Maker for the
rebate. If at the end of the month, a Market Maker meets the
Exchange's stated criteria, the Exchange rebates $0.10 per contract
for transactions executed by that Market Maker during that month.
The Exchange provides Market Makers a report on a daily basis with
quoting statistics so that Market Makers can determine whether or
not they are meeting the Exchange's stated criteria.
    \6\ A Customer (Professional) is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for complex orders in the Select Symbols (excluding SPY),
the Exchange currently charges a ``taker'' fee of: (i) $0.34 per
contract for Market Maker, Market Maker Plus, Firm Proprietary and
Customer (Professional) orders. The Exchange now proposes to increase
the complex order ``taker'' fee for Market Maker, Market Maker Plus,
Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders in the Select
Symbols (excluding SPY) from $0.34 per contract to $0.35 per contract.
The Exchange is not proposing any change to the complex order ``taker''
fee for Non-ISE Market Maker orders or Priority Customer orders in the
Select Symbols (excluding SPY).
    Additionally, the Exchange provides ISE Market Makers with a two
cent discount when trading against Priority Customer orders that are
preferenced to them. This discount is applicable when ISE Market Makers
remove liquidity in the Select Symbols (excluding SPY) from the complex
order book. ISE Market Makers that remove liquidity in the Select
Symbols (excluding SPY) from the complex order book by trading with
Priority Customer orders that are preferenced to them will be charged
$0.33 per contract.
    The Exchange currently provides volume-based tiered rebates for
Priority Customer complex orders in the Select Symbols (excluding SPY)
when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders in the
complex order book. Specifically, the Exchange currently provides a
rebate of $0.32 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex
orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex
orders in the complex order book. Additionally, Members who achieve
certain average daily volume (ADV) of Priority Customer complex order
contracts across all symbols executed during a calendar month are
provided a rebate of $0.33 per contract per leg in these symbols, if a
Member achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order
contracts; $0.34 per contract per leg in these symbols, if a Member
achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts;
and $0.345 per contract per leg in these symbols, if a Member achieves
an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts. The
highest rebate amount achieved by the Member for the current calendar
month applies retroactively to all Priority Customer complex order
contracts that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the
complex order book executed by the Member during such calendar month.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the level of rebate for Members
who achieve an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer Complex contracts, from
$0.345 per contract per leg to $0.35 per contract per leg.
    The Exchange also currently provides volume-based tiered rebates
for Priority Customer complex orders in option symbol SPY when these
orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders in the complex order
book. Specifically, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.33
per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex orders when these
orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in SPY in the
complex order book. Additionally, Members who achieve certain ADV of
Priority Customer complex order contracts in SPY during a calendar
month are provided a rebate of $0.34 per contract per leg, if a Member
achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts;
$0.35 per contract per leg, if a Member achieves an ADV of 125,000
Priority Customer

complex order contracts; and $0.355 per contract per leg, if a Member
achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts.
The highest rebate amount achieved by the Member for the current
calendar month applies retroactively to all Priority Customer complex
order contracts that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in
the complex order book executed by the Member during such calendar
month. The Exchange now proposes to increase the level of rebate for
Members who achieve an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer Complex
contracts in SPY, from $0.355 per contract per leg to $0.36 per
contract per leg.
    The Exchange has similar volume-based tiered rebates for Priority
Customer complex orders in Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols when these
orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders in the complex order
book. Specifically, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.28
per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex orders when these
orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex
order book. Additionally, Members who achieve certain ADV of Priority
Customer complex order contracts across all symbols executed during a
calendar month are provided a rebate of $0.21 [sic] per contract per
leg in these symbols, if a Member achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority
Customer complex order contracts; $0.32 per contract per leg in these
symbols, if a Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer
complex order contracts; and $0.325 per contract per leg in these
symbols, if a Member achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer
complex order contracts. Again, the highest rebate amount achieved by
the Member for the current calendar month applies retroactively to all
Priority Customer complex order contracts that trade with non-Priority
Customer complex orders in the complex order book executed by the
Member during such calendar month.
    In order to enhance the Exchange's competitive position and to
incentivize Members to increase the amount of Priority Customer complex
orders in the Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols that they send to the
Exchange, the Exchange now proposes to increase the base amount of the
rebate to $0.29 per contract. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
increase the amount of that rebate even further, on a month-by-month
and Member-by-Member basis, if such Member achieves an ADV of Priority
Customer complex order contracts across all symbols executed during the
calendar month, as follows: if the Member achieves an ADV of 75,000
Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount shall be
$0.31 per contract per leg; if the Member achieves an ADV of 125,000
Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount shall be
$0.33 per contract per leg; and if the Member achieves an ADV of
250,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts, the rebate amount
shall be $0.34 per contract per leg.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act'') \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
Exchange members and other persons using its facilities. The impact of
the proposal upon the net fees paid by a particular market participant
will depend on a number of variables, most important of which will be
its propensity to add or remove liquidity in options overlying the
Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a $0.29 per
contract ``taker'' fee for Market Maker and Market Maker Plus orders in
the Select Symbols is reasonable and equitably allocated because the
fee is within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges employing
similar pricing schemes. For example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX'')
currently charges Specialists $0.33 per contract for removing liquidity
in symbols that are subject to that exchange's maker/taker fees.\10\
Further, the proposed increase will align this fee to the fee the
Exchange currently charges to other market participants that employ a
similar trading strategy. The Exchange also notes that with this
proposed rule change, the fee charged to Market Maker and Market Maker
Plus orders will remain lower than the fee currently charged by the
Exchange to certain other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See PHLX Fee Schedule at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/marketregulation/membership/phlx/feesched.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that its proposal to assess a $0.30 per
contract ``taker'' fee for Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional)
orders in the Select Symbols is reasonable and equitably allocated
because the fee is also within the range of fees assessed by other
exchanges employing similar pricing schemes. By comparison, the
proposed fees assessed to Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional)
orders are lower than the rates assessed by PHLX for similar orders.
PHLX currently charges a ``taker'' fee of $0.45 for Firm and Broker-
Dealer orders and $0.40 for Professional orders in its regular order
book.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the price differentiation between the
various market participants is justified because Market Makers have
obligations to the market that the other market participants do not.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable to assess a higher fee to
market participants that do not have the quoting requirements that
Exchange Market Makers do.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess a $0.35 per
contract ``taker'' fee for Market Maker, Market Maker Plus, Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders in the Select Symbols
(excluding SPY) is reasonable and equitably allocated because the fee
is within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges employing
similar pricing schemes and in some cases, is lower that the fees
assessed by other exchanges. For example, PHLX currently charges $0.37
per contract for removing liquidity in complex orders for Specialist
orders and $0.38 per contract for Firm and Professional orders.\12\
Therefore, while ISE is proposing a fee increase for Market Maker,
Market Maker Plus, Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders,
the resulting fee remains lower than the fee currently charged by PHLX
for similar orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a two cent discount to Market Makers on preferenced orders as
an incentive for them to quote in the complex order book. The Exchange
notes that PHLX currently provides a similar discount. Accordingly,
Market Makers who remove liquidity in the Select Symbols (excluding
SPY) from the complex order book will be charged $0.33 per contract
when trading with Priority Customer orders that are preferenced to
them. ISE notes that with this proposed fee change, the Exchange will
continue to maintain a two cent differential that was previously in
place.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide rebates for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders
trade with Non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order
book because paying a rebate would continue to attract additional order
flow to the

Exchange and create liquidity in the symbols that are subject to the
rebate, which the Exchange believes ultimately will benefit all market
participants who trade on ISE. The Exchange already provides these
types of rebates, and is now merely proposing to increase those rebate
amounts. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates are
competitive with rebates provided by other exchanges and are therefore
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that direct orders
to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
    The complex order pricing employed by the Exchange has proven to be
an effective pricing mechanism and attractive to Exchange participants
and their customers. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule
change will continue to attract additional complex order business in
the symbols that are subject of this proposed rule change.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are fair,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees are
consistent with price differentiation that exists today at other
options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange believes it remains an
attractive venue for market participants to direct their order flow in
the symbols that are subject to this proposed rule change as its fees
are competitive with those charged by other exchanges for similar
trading strategies. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
another exchange if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be
excessive. For the reasons noted above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are fair, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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-ISE-2012-62 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-ISE-2012-62. 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-ISE-2012-62 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17332 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69920-69921]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Availability of a Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact
Statement, for the Chicago, IL to St. Louis, MO High Speed Rail
Corridor Program and Tier 2 Evaluation for the Springfield Rail
Improvements Project

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), United States Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) has been prepared for the
Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor
Program. The Final EIS includes a Tier 1 corridor evaluation for the
Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri high-speed rail corridor and a
Tier 2 project-level evaluation for the portion of the high-speed rail
corridor in Springfield, Illinois. FRA is the lead federal agency and
the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is

the joint-lead state agency for the environmental review process.
    IDOT proposes to improve high speed passenger rail service between
Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri, including the rail lines
through Springfield, Illinois. The proposal includes the development of
double track along the railroad corridor to improve high-speed
passenger service reliability and safety, and to increase the number of
trips between Chicago and St. Louis, as well as improvements to
railroad crossings, signals, and stations.
    The Final EIS presents the Program's purpose and need, identifies
all reasonable alternatives, describes the affected environment,
analyzes the potential environmental impacts of all the reasonable
alternatives and the No-Build Alternative, and identifies the Preferred
Alternative and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the
potential environmental impacts.

DATES: FRA will issue a final decision on the proposal after the 30 day
wait period which concludes on December 10, 2012, established by
Environmental Protection Agency's publication of the notice of
availability of the EIS in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS have been sent to affected Federal,
State, and local government agencies, stakeholders, and are also
available for public review at IDOT, 505 North MacArthur Boulevard,
Springfield, Illinois 62702 and online at FRA's Web site: http://www.fra.dot.gov and IDOT's Web site: http://www.idothsr.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea E. Martin, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy and Development,
Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-20, Washington, DC 20590; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Joseph E. Shacter,
Director, Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation, Illinois
Department of Transportation, 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600,
Chicago, Illinois 60601; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:
312-793-2116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed Program would include the
development of a double track and railroad crossings, signals, and
stations along a preferred route of existing railroad corridors between
Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri, to improve high-speed
passenger service reliability and safety, and increase the number of
trips. This Program of improvements would be in addition to those
associated with FRA studies within the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor
previously conducted from 2004 and 2011 and being implemented by IDOT.
    The Final EIS identifies and evaluates the environmental and
transportation impacts for corridor capacity enhancements, including
double track. The current Chicago to St. Louis Corridor operates
predominantly on a single track that is shared by both traditional
freight and Amtrak passenger rail service.
    A tiered environmental process was used to evaluate the proposed
Program. A tiered environmental process is a phased environmental
review used in the development of complex projects. Under this process,
the Tier 1 EIS addresses broad, corridor issues and alternatives. Tier
2 environmental documents address individual component projects of the
Selected Alternative carried forward from the Tier 1 environmental
process. Concurrently with this Tier 1 study of the full Chicago to St.
Louis Corridor, IDOT and FRA conducted a Tier 2 evaluation for the
portion of the High-Speed Rail Corridor in Springfield, IL.
    In June 2012, IDOT circulated the Draft Tier 1 EIS for a 45-day
public and agency review and comment period pursuant to 40 CFR
1502.9(b). The Draft Tier 1 EIS analyzed a No-Build Alternative and
various Build Alternatives. IDOT and FRA convened public hearings in
August 2012 in Chicago, Joliet, Springfield, Bloomington, and Alton,
Illinois.
    The IDOT and FRA considered the entire record and compared the
potential environmental impacts of the Tier 1 Build Alternatives, as
well as impacts of the No-Build Alternative, in order to select the
Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative follows the existing
Amtrak passenger corridor, except through Springfield and north of
Joliet. Between Chicago and Joliet, the Preferred Alternative follows
the Metra Rock Island District line from Joliet Union Station to the
Norfolk Southern (NS) line near 40th Street in Chicago, the NS to
Amtrak south of Union Station, and Amtrak owned tracks to Union
Station. The Preferred Alternative allows for eight daily round trips
at 110 miles per hour (mph) on two tracks.
    Other improvements also identified in the Final EIS include
sidings, pedestrian grade separations at the stations, and grade
separations along major roadways. Individual component projects along
the corridor would be advanced and studied in greater detail as future
Tier 2 project-level evaluations, as part of the tiered environmental
review process.
    A Tier 2 project-level evaluation for improvements in Springfield
is also included within the Final EIS. The Springfield Rail
Improvements Project has been advanced concurrently as a component of
the overall corridor program. The Tier 2 evaluation further considers
the environmental and transportation impacts of alternatives following
different rail routes through the City of Springfield, Illinois. The
evaluation addresses safety, noise, and traffic delays that would
result from increased volumes of both passenger and freight rail
traffic on the three north-south rail corridors that pass through the
City of Springfield. In Springfield (as identified in the Tier 2
project-level evaluation), the Preferred Alternative is to shift Union
Pacific (UP) freight as well as new and existing Amtrak passenger
trains to an expanded NS corridor along Tenth Street.
    This Final EIS has been prepared in compliance with the provisions
of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.), and
FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545;
May 26, 1999).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2012.
Corey W. Hill,
Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-28301 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5231-5232]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1857]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63754; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Amendment No. 23 to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan
Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation
and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Submitted by the BATS
Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE Amex, Inc., and NYSE Arca, Inc.

January 21, 2011.
    Pursuant to Rule 608 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act'') \1\ notice is hereby given that on December 15, 2010, the
operating committee (``Operating Committee'' or ``Committee'') \2\ of
the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' or ``Plan'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
amendment to the Plan.\3\ This amendment represents Amendment No. 23 to
the Plan and proposes to establish a broker-dealer enterprise maximum
(the ``Enterprise Maximum'') in respect of fees that the broker-dealer
is required to pay for distribution of UTP Level 1 Service to
nonprofessional subscribers that are brokerage account customers of the
broker/dealer. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments from interested persons on the proposed Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \2\ The Plan Participants (collectively, ``Participants'') are
the: BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''); Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''); Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'');
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''); EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'');
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'');
International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(``BX''); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX''); Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''); National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''); New York
Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''); NYSE Amex, Inc. (``NYSEAmex''); and
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'').
    \3\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for each of its
Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the
current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It
enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current
prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves
as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants,
which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007) 72 FR
20891 (April 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Purpose of the Amendments

    The Participants propose to establish the Enterprise Maximum
mentioned above. The proposed Enterprise Maximum would apply in respect
of each entitlement system of an entity that is registered as a broker/
dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    For each entitlement system, it would limit the monthly maximum
amount of fees that such a broker/dealer would be required to pay for
distribution of UTP Level 1 Service to nonprofessional subscribers that
are brokerage account customers of the broker/dealer.
    Exhibit 2 to the Plan defines ``nonprofessional subscriber'' as a
natural person who is neither:
    (A) registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission,
the Commodities [sic] Futures Trading Commission, any state securities
agency, any securities exchange or association or any commodities or
futures contract market or association;
    (B) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or
not registered or qualified under that Act); nor
    (C) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from
registration under federal or state securities laws to perform
functions that would require registration or qualification if such
functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.
    For calendar year 2010, the Participants propose to set the monthly
Enterprise Maximum at $600,000 per entitlement system. For each
subsequent calendar year, the Enterprise Maximum would increase by the
percentage increase in the annual composite share volume for the
preceding calendar year, subject to a maximum annual increase of five
percent. However, the amendment would allow the Participants to
determine to waive the increase for any calendar year.
    The Enterprise Maximum would enable broker/dealers with significant
numbers of nonprofessional subscribers to limit their costs in respect
of their provision of Plan data to nonprofessional subscribers and
would facilitate their ability to budget their market data
expenditures.

B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

C. Implementation of Amendment

    The Participants propose to apply the monthly Enterprise Maximum to
qualifying broker/dealers commencing with the month of January 2011.

D. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The proposed amendment does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act. The Participants do not believe that the proposed
plan amendment introduces terms that are unreasonably discriminatory
for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.

F. Written Understanding or Agreements relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements
relating to interpretation of the Plan as a result of the amendment.

G. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance with Plan

    Each of the Plan's Participants has executed a written amendment to
the Plan.

H. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

I. Terms and Conditions of Access

    See Item I(A) above.

J. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    The Participants believe that the level of the fee allows broker/
dealers to contribute an appropriate amount for the market data
services that they provide to nonprofessional subscribers. By capping
the monthly amount payable in respect of nonprofessional subscribers,
the Enterprise Maximum would both reduce the fees otherwise payable by
broker/dealers with significant numbers of nonprofessional subscribers
and enable those broker/dealers to forecast their market data
expenditures more efficiently.

    The Participants believe that the proposed Enterprise Maximum is
fair and reasonable and provides for an equitable allocation of dues,
fees, and other charges among vendors, data recipients and other
persons using the Participants' facilities.

K. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

L. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a)

A. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

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

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

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

    Not applicable.

E. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

F. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

G. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not Applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks general comments on Amendment No. 23.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 S7-24-89 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 S7-24-89. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of
the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed
Plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed Plan amendment between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for website
viewing and printing at the Office of the Secretary of the Committee,
currently located at the CBOE, 400 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL
60605. 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 S7-24-
89 and should be submitted on or before February 18, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1857 Filed 1-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65458-65460]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22791]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78861; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-129]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.35P
(Auctions) Regarding Indicative Match Price

September 16, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 9, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to, through its wholly-owned corporation NYSE
Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), amend Rule 7.35P
(Auctions) regarding Indicative Match Price. The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35P, which governs how
Auctions operate on the Exchange's Pillar trading platform.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35P(a)(8) regarding
Indicative Match Price. Under Rule 7.35(a)(8) [sic], Indicative Match
Price means the best price at which the maximum volume of shares,
including non-displayed quantity of Reserve Orders, is tradable in the
applicable auction, subject to the Auction Collars. The Exchange
proposes to specify, as proposed in Rule 7.35P(a)(8)(F), that unless
the Indicative Match Price is based on the midpoint of an Auction NBBO,
if the Indicative Match Price is not in the MPV \4\ for the security,
it would be rounded to the nearest price at the applicable MPV.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The minimum price variation (``MPV'') for quoting and entry
of orders in securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is
$0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than
$1.00 for which the MPV for quoting and entry of orders is $0.0001.
See Arca Rule 7.6.
    \5\ The Indicative Match Price is currently calculated without
any rounding, as provided in Arca Rule 7.35P(a)(8)(A)-(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially filed to amend the definition of Indicative
Match Price in a filing that is currently pending with the
Commission.\6\ Although the proposed change was included in the Tick
Pilot System Functionality Filing, the anticipated rounding scenarios
for the Indicative Price Match would apply to all securities traded on
the Exchange, not just Tick Pilot Securities. The technology change
related to the rounding of the Indicative Match Price is scheduled to
be implemented within 30 days of the date of this filing and prior to
October 3, 2016, the implementation date of the Tick Size Pilot
Program. The Exchange is therefore filing this proposed rule change to
ensure that both the functionality and the rules of the Exchange are
consistent with one another when the Exchange introduces the technology
change. The proposed rule change would also add more certainty
regarding the calculation of the Indicative Match Price as it would be
rounded to the nearest price at the applicable MPV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-NYSEArca-2016-123 filed on August 25, 2016 (the
``Tick Pilot System Functionality Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to
Rule 7.35P(a)(8) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system as it provides
transparency regarding when the Exchange would round the Indicative
Match Price if it is not in the MPV for an applicable security. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to implement this
change for all securities, not just Tick Pilot Securities, would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it would ensure consistent treatment
regarding the calculation of Indicative Match Price.
    The calculation of the Indicative Match Price is essential to
executing the maximum volume of shares in an auction and the Exchange
believes adopting a rounding methodology when calculating the
Indicative Match Price, as proposed herein, will promote transparency,
clarity and certainty to the rule, which serves to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to make an
amendment to Rule 7.35P regarding the calculation of Indicative Match
Price for orders executed in Auctions on the Exchange's Pillar trading
platform.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. According to
the Exchange, this proposed rule change would provide certainty and
transparency to its rules regarding the Indicative Match Price.
Moreover, according to the Exchange, waiver of the operative delay
would allow it to introduce technology related to this proposed rule
change, which would be applicable to all securities, within 30 days of
the date of this filing. The Commission believes the waiver of the
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the

operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission 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 change should be approved or
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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-129 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-129. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-129, and
should be submitted on or before October 13, 2016.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22791 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34568-34570]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD18-5-000]

Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other
Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act;
Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative
Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2017

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
required to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by other
Federal agencies (OFAs) \1\ in connection with their participation in
the Commission's proceedings under the Federal Power Act (FPA) Part I
\2\ when those agencies seek to include such costs in the
administrative charges licensees must pay to reimburse the United
States for the cost of administering Part I.\3\ The Commission's Order
on Remand and

Acting on Appeals of Annual Charge Bills \4\ determined which costs are
eligible to be included in the administrative annual charges. This
order also established a process whereby the Commission would annually
request each OFA to submit cost data, using a form \5\ specifically
designed for this purpose. In addition, the order established
requirements for detailed cost accounting reports and other documented
analyses to explain the cost assumptions contained in the OFAs'
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The OFAs include: the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of the Solicitor, Office of Environmental Policy &
Compliance, Office of Hearings and Appeals, and Office of Policy
Analysis); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service);
the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service);
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 791a-823d (2012).
    \3\ See id. 803(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 7178.
    \4\ 107 FERC ] 61,277, order on reh'g, 109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004).
    \5\ Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form, available at
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission has completed its review of the forms and
supporting documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture),
and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year (FY)
2017. This notice reports the costs the Commission included in its
administrative annual charges for FY 2018.

Scope of Eligible Costs

    3. The basis for eligible costs that should be included in the
OFAs' administrative annual charges is prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-25--User Charges and the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 4--Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. Circular
A-25 establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for government
services and provides specific information on the scope and type of
activities subject to user charges. SFFAS Number 4 provides a
conceptual framework for federal agencies to determine the full costs
of government goods and services.
    4. Circular A-25 provides for user charges to be assessed against
recipients of special benefits derived from federal activities beyond
those received by the general public.\6\ With regard to licensees, the
special benefit derived from federal activities is the license to
operate a hydropower project. The guidance provides for the assessment
of sufficient user charges to recover the full costs of services
associated with these special benefits.\7\ SFFAS Number 4 defines full
costs as the costs of resources consumed by a specific governmental
unit that contribute directly or indirectly to a provided service.\8\
Thus, pursuant to OMB requirements and authoritative accounting
guidance, the Commission must base its OFA administrative annual charge
on all direct and indirect costs incurred by agencies in administering
Part I of the FPA. The special form the Commission designed for this
purpose, the ``Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form,'' captures
the full range of costs recoverable under the FPA and the referenced
accounting guidance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OMB Circular A-25 6.
    \7\ OMB Circular A-25 6.a.2.
    \8\ SFFAS Number 4 ] 7.
    \9\ To avoid the possibility of confusion that has occurred in
prior years as to whether costs were being entered twice as ``Other
Direct Costs'' and ``Overhead,'' the form excluded ``Other Direct
Costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Review of OFA Cost Submittals

    5. The Commission received cost forms and other supporting
documentation from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce. The Commission completed a review of each OFA's cost
submission forms and supporting reports. In its examination of the
OFAs' cost data, the Commission considered each agency's ability to
demonstrate a system or process which effectively captured, isolated,
and reported FPA Part I costs as required by the ``Other Federal Agency
Cost Submission Form.''
    6. The Commission held a Technical Conference on March 29, 2018 to
report its initial findings to licensees and OFAs. Representatives for
several licensees and most of the OFAs attended the conference.
Following the technical conference, a transcript was posted, and
licensees had the opportunity to submit comments to the Commission
regarding its initial review.
    7. Idaho Falls Group (Idaho Falls) filed written comments,\10\
stating its general support of the Commission's analysis but raising
questions regarding certain various individual cost submissions. These
issues are addressed in the Appendix to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter from Sharon L. White, Van Ness Feldman, to the
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, FERC, Docket No. AD18-5-000 (filed April
26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. After additional review, full consideration of the comments
presented, and in accordance with the previously cited guidance, the
Commission accepted as reasonable any costs reported via the cost
submission forms that were clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying
reports and/or analyses. These documented costs will be included in the
administrative annual charges for FY 2018.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JY18.000

    9. Figure 1 summarizes the total reported costs incurred by
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce with respect to their participation
in administering Part I of the FPA. Additionally, Figure 1 summarizes
the reported costs that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and accepted for inclusion in its FY 2018 administrative
annual charges.

Summary Findings of Commission's Costs Review

    10. As presented in Figure 1, the Commission determined that
$6,602,429 of the $6,643,007 in total reported costs were reasonable
and clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying reports and/or
analyses. Based on this finding, 1% of the total reported cost was
determined to be unreasonable. The Commission noted the most
significant issue with the documentation provided by the OFAs was the
lack of supporting documentation to substantiate costs reported on the
``Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form.''
    11. The cost reports that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and supported could be traced to detailed cost-accounting
reports, which reconciled to data provided from agency financial
systems or other pertinent source documentation. A further breakdown of
these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice, along with an
explanation of how the Commission determined their reasonableness.

Points of Contact

    12. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact
Norman Richardson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Raven Rodriguez at (202) 502-
6276.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15562 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


August 16, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO:  EPA Docket #

FROM:  Cheryl Caffrey, Mechanical Engineer, ASD, EPA

RE:  CPSC, Health Canada and Toro Recall Snowblowers
____________________________________________________________________________________

The recall was based on the  observation that exposure to ethanol in gasoline can cause the carburetor needle to become corroded. A corroded needle can stick in the open position and allow fuel to leak from the carburetor, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10299.html

NEWS from
CPSC and HC

U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission
www.cpsc.gov

                      Health Canada
   www.hc-sc.gc.ca

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 14, 2010
Release #10-299
Firm's Recall Hotline:<PHONE_NUMBER>
CPSC Recall Hotline:<PHONE_NUMBER>
CPSC Media Contact:<PHONE_NUMBER>
HC Media Contact:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Snow Blowers Recalled by The Toro Company Due to Fire Hazard
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of product: Power Clear 180 Single Stage Snow Blowers
Units: About 35,700 in the United States and 2,300 in Canada
Manufacturer: The Toro Company, of Bloomington, Minn.
Hazard: Exposure to ethanol in gasoline can cause the carburetor needle to become corroded. A corroded needle can stick in the open position and allow fuel to leak from the carburetor, posing a fire hazard to consumers.
Incidents/Injuries: Toro has received 2,200 reports of carburetor leaks. No fires or injuries have been reported.
Description: This recall involves Toro(R) Power Clear 180 Single Stage snow blowers. The recalled snow blowers have model numbers 38272 and 38282. Serial numbers included in the recall range from 310000001 through 310999999. The model and serial number can be found on a decal on the lower right side of the snow blower.
Sold at: Toro dealers and The Home Depot stores nationwide from November 2009 through May 2010 for between $400 and $440.
Manufactured in: U.S.A.
Remedy: Consumers should immediately check to see if their snow blowers are included in this recall and contact an authorized Toro service dealer to arrange a free repair. To obtain the location of the nearest dealer, consumers should contact Toro.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Toro toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER> between 7:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at www.toro.com
Note: Health Canada's press release is available at http://cpsr-rspc.hc-sc.gc.ca/PR-RP/recall-retrait-eng.jsp?re_id=1105

                                      ---
CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. Please tell us about it by visiting https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.
To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER> or CPSC's teletypewriter at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov.


[Federal Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 66826]
[DOCID:fr03no05-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-400-001]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice Of Compliance Filing

October 26, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 20, 2005, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's
``Order Approving Abandonment'' issued October 5, 2005 in Docket No.
CP05-400-000, which authorized the abandonment of Rate Schedule X-5.
    DTI states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6064 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P