[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 790]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-17-000]

California Public Employees' Retirement System; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on December 21, 2011, pursuant to section
203(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 824b and 207(a)(2) of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CalPERS) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting
that the Commission disclaim jurisdiction over the transfer of 75
percent of the Class C non-managing membership interests in Neptune
Regional Transmission System, LLC, indirectly held by Alerion IV, LLC,
to CalPERS.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 5, 2012.

    Dated: December 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45704-45705]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18753]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67508; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Terminate Revenue Sharing Agreement and Delete Associated Fee Schedule

July 26, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 19, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a rule change to terminate a revenue sharing
program with Correlix, Inc. (``Correlix''), and delete the associated
fees set forth in NASDAQ OMX PHLX Pricing Schedule, Section X(e). The
text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/, at Phlx's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Phlx proposes to eliminate its revenue-sharing program with
Correlix, which was adopted to provide users of the Exchange real-time
analytical tools to measure the latency of orders to and from its
systems. In 2010, the Commission approved the revenue-sharing program,
as well as a flexible free trial period for new users.\3\ Under the
program, the Exchange contracted with Correlix to receive 30% of the
total monthly subscription fees received by Correlix from parties who
contracted directly with Correlix to use its RaceTeam latency
measurement service on the Exchange. The Exchange now proposes to
terminate the revenue sharing relationship with Correlix due to the
lack of customer interest in the measurement tools offered. It also
proposes to delete from the rulebook the listing of fees for the
service, so as to eliminate any confusion on the part of customers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63219 (November 1, 2010) 75 FR
68387 (November 5, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-152).
    \4\ The NASDAQ Stock Market recently filed a similar rule filing
eliminating its revenue sharing relationship with Correlix and
deleting from its rulebook the listing of fees for the service, due
to lack of customer interest in the tools. See Exchange Act Release
No. 67285 (June 27, 2012) 77 FR 39551 (July 3, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-
2012-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal 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 regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and 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. Specifically, Phlx believes
ending the revenue sharing agreement and eliminating the fee for a
product that customers have not chosen to utilize is responsive to
market participants and eliminates confusion about offered products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that terminating the revenue
sharing agreement and deleting the fee in the rulebook will not burden
competition since the latency measurement tools are not currently being
used by any customers.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and
designate the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing to
eliminate confusion on the part of potential customers regarding the
availability of the Correlix RaceTeam offering. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
represents that there are no customers currently using Correlix's
RaceTeam latency

measurement service. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission 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.

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-Phlx-2012-98 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-Phlx-2012-98. 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-Phlx-2012-98 and should be
submitted on or before August 22, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18753 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 93592-93595]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8847; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-020-AD;
Amendment 39-18742; AD 2016-25-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of two cases where the main
landing gear (MLG) failed to fully extend; it was determined that
interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented
the MLG door from opening fully. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent
structures; and replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners,
or removal of the MLG door, if necessary. This AD also requires
installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of
the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, which would terminate
the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 25, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 25,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-
514-855-2999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8847.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8847; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply certain Bombardier, Inc. Model
CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 26, 2016 (81 FR 58874) (``the NPRM'').
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-30, dated December 30, 2015 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-
2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two cases of main landing gear (MLG) failure to fully extend
have been reported on model CL-600-2C10/-2D15/-2D24 aeroplanes.
Investigation determined that interference between the MLG door and
the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening.
    Although model CL-600-2E25 aeroplanes feature new MLG door
design, similar interference between the MLG door and the MLG
fairing seal could exist on aeroplanes listed in the Applicability
section of this [Canadian] AD. An MLG failing to extend may result
in an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive inspection and
rectification [which could include replacement or repair of affected
parts and fasteners, or removal of the door, if necessary], as
required, of the MLG fairing and seal, MLG door, and adjacent
structures, until the mandatory terminating action is completed.

    The terminating action includes installation of a safety guide in
the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and
the fairing, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8847.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March
28, 2013. The service information describes procedures for detailed
inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent
structures; replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners and
removal of the MLG door.
    We also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated
May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of
the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 40 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                       Labor cost             Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Installation......  50 work-hours x $85 per                 $0           $4,250         $170,000
                                    hour = $4,250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data on the costs for the on-
condition repairs that will be required based on the results of the
inspection.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/
removals that will be required based on the results of the required
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these replacements/removals:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                            Labor cost                   Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of damaged fairing     6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510   $921 per seal......  $1,431 per seal
 seal.                              per seal replacement.                                     replacement.
Removal of MLG door..............  3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255   0..................  255 per removal of
                                    per removal of MLG door.                                  MLG door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of MLG door..................  13 work-hours x $85 per hour =                  $0           $1,105
                                             $1,105.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-25-16 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18742; Docket No. FAA-
2016-8847; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-020-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 25, 2017.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers 19002 through 19041 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two cases where the main
landing gear (MLG) failed to fully extend; it was determined that
interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented
the MLG door from opening fully. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing
seal. Such interference could result in a MLG failing to fully
extend, which could cause an unsafe asymmetric landing
configuration.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection of MLG Fairing, Fairing Seal, Door, and Adjacent
Structures

    Within 660 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
conduct a detailed inspection for damage to the MLG fairing, fairing
seal, door, and adjacent structures, and for missing parts and
fasteners, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated
March 28, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 660 flight hours until the installation required by paragraph
(m) of this AD is done.

(h) Replacement of MLG Fairing Seal or Door Removal

    If damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace
the seal, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated
March 28, 2013; or remove the MLG door, in accordance with Part C of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.

(i) Repair of the MLG Door or MLG Door Removal

    If damage to the MLG door is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO); or remove the MLG door, in accordance with Part
C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.

(j) Repair of the MLG Fairing

    If damage to the MLG fairing is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA;
or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(k) Repair of the Adjacent Structure and Other Corrective Actions

    If damage to the adjacent structure is found or if any part or
fastener is found missing or damaged during any inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the
applicable actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Replace missing or damaged parts and fasteners, in
accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instruction of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013,
except where Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March
28, 2013, specifies to contact Bombardier, before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-
170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (2) Repair damaged structure using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA DAO.

(l) Reinstallation of the MLG Door

    For any MLG door that has been removed as specified in paragraph
(h) or (i) of this AD: Reinstallation of the door, if accomplished,
must be done in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated
March 28, 2013. Before further flight after any reinstallation, the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be done and the
inspection must be repeated thereafter at the times specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD until the installation required by
paragraph (m) of this AD is done.

(m) Installation of a Safety Guide on the MLG Fairing and Increase of
Spacing Between MLG Door and Fairing

    Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD: Within 6,600
flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the
effective date of this AD, install a safety guide on the MLG fairing
and increase the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26, 2015. Accomplishment of
these actions terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l)
of this AD.

(n) Provisions for Removed/Reinstalled Doors

    If the MLG door has been removed in accordance with Part C of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier

Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013, the
installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD may be delayed
until the MLG door is reinstalled in accordance with paragraph (l)
of this AD. When the removed MLG door is reinstalled, the
installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD must be done at
the time specified in paragraph (m) of this AD or before further
flight after reinstallation of the removed MLG door, whichever
occurs later.

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(p) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-30, dated December 30,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8847.

(q) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28,
2013.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26,
2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.govfxsp0;/
federal-registerfxsp0;/cfr/ibr-locations.htmlfxsp0;.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 1, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-29513 Filed 12-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26177-26178]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0194]

Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative
Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on revision of a previously
approved ICR.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of the Secretary (OST)
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and

approval and invites public comment. Executive Order 12862 directs
Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or
exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to
work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet
our customers' needs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) seeks a
revision to a fast track generic clearance information collection
request already approved by OMB. A 60-day notice was published on March
28, 2019. No comments were received. OST requests revision of ICR with
OMB Control Number: 2105-0573 as described below.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments may
also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Habib Azarsina, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-1965 (Voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
    Abstract: The information collection activity will garner
qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with the Department's commitment to improving
service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insight into customer or stakeholder perceptions, opinions, experiences
and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or
focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Department of Transportation and its
customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute
directly to the improvement of program management. Feedback or
information collected under this generic clearance will provide useful
information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population.
    The Department seeks a revision to a fast track generic clearance
information collection request already approved by OMB. Existence of
Fast Track option for conducting surveys has caused a sudden increase
in number of surveys. OST has already used the 2,000 burden hours
previously approved. OST requests increasing the total burden hours to
60,000.
    The Department will submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary.
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government.
     The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future.
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general service improvement and program management
purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Department (if
released, the Department must indicate the qualitative nature of the
information).
    This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not
be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to
yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time
or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more
rigorous designs that address: The target population to which
generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design
(including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements
or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the
expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse
bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures
that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending
on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such
collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic
mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
    Type of Review: Revision of a previously approved ICR.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households, businesses and
organizations, State, Local or Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 240,000.
    Estimated Annual Responses: 80,000.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 20,000 hours.
    Frequency: One-time requirement.

Annual burden hours = (80,000 responses) x (15 minutes) = 1,200,000
min. = 20,000 hours.
Total burden hours for 3 years = 20,000 x 3 = 60,000 hours.
Total respondents = 80,000 (each year) x 3 = 240,000.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Habib Azarsina,
OST Paperwork Reduction Act Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-11701 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 65117]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23420]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2001-8697]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 29, 2022, Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232
(Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-passenger
Trains and Equipment; End of Train Devices). The relevant FRA Docket
Number is FRA-2001-8697.
    Specifically, UP requests a waiver extension from 49 CFR 232.205,
Class 1 brake test--initial terminal inspection, and certain provisions
of part 215 related to the inspection of trains entering the United
States from Mexico at Nogales, Arizona. UP seeks to continue to move
trains received in interchange with Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico
approximately 8 miles north of Nogales, Arizona, to the siding at Rio,
Arizona, before an initial terminal air brake test is performed. UP
stated in its initial 2001 petition \1\ that the relief prevents
``blockages of key street crossings within the City of Nogales for
considerable lengths of time.'' In its 2022 petition, UP asserts that
it has ``been operating under the requirements set forth in the waiver
for the past twenty-one years and no adverse effect on the safety of
operations has occurred.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2001-8697-0001.
_____________________________________-

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications are requested by December 27, 2022. Comments
received after that date will be considered if practicable. FRA
reserves the right to extend the existing relief subject to subsequent
consideration of any comments submitted to the docket.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-23420 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42180-42181]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18860]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form N-54C, SEC File No. 270-184, OMB Control No. 3235-0236.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Certain investment companies can elect to be regulated as business
development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act''), under sections 55
through 65 of the Investment Company Act. Under section 54(a) of the
Investment Company Act,\1\ any company defined in section 2(a)(48)(A)
and (B) of the Investment Company Act may, if it meets certain
enumerated eligibility requirements, elect to be subject to the
provisions of Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act by
filing with the Commission a notification of election. Under section
54(c) of the Investment Company Act,\2\ any business development
company may voluntarily withdraw its election under section 54(a) of
the Investment Company Act by filing a notice of withdrawal of election
with the Commission. The Commission has adopted Form N-54C as the form
for the notification of withdrawal of election to be subject to
Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act. The purpose of
Form N-54C is to notify the Commission that the business development
company withdraws its election to be subject to Sections 55

through 65 of the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-53(a).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-53(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that on average approximately four
business development companies file notifications on Form N-54C each
year. Each of those business development companies need only make a
single filing of Form N-54C. The Commission further estimates that this
information collection imposes a burden of one hour, resulting in a
total annual burden of four hours. Based on the estimated wage rate,
the total cost to the business development company industry of the hour
burden for complying with Form N-54C would be approximately $1,380.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The industry burden is calculated by multiplying the total
annual hour burden to prepare Form N-54C (four) by the estimated
hourly wage rate of $345 for a compliance attorney or other
similarly situated business development company employee. The
estimated wage figure is based on published rates for compliance
attorneys from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1800 hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead,
yielding an effective hourly rate of $1,380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information under Form N-54C is mandatory. The
information provided by the form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 31, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18860 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Michael Catanzaro/ DC/ USEPA/ US 07/ 26/ 2006 08: 29 AM T o Jason Burnett/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c martella. roger@ epa. gov, thompson. chet@ epa. gov S u b j e c t Fw: 7/ 24 Memo on PM Compliance Concerns  Forwarded by Michael Catanzaro/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 07/ 26/ 2006 08: 29 AM

" Johnston, A. Todd" < ajohnston@ nma. org>

07/ 25/ 2006 01: 45 PM T o Michael Catanzaro/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c S u b j e c t 7/ 24 Memo on PM Compliance Concerns Mike   This is a follow up to yesterday's conversation.

Todd


[Federal Register: December 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76088-76090]
[DOCID:fr22de05-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52953; File No. SR-CHX-2005-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of a Proposed
Rule Change by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. and Amendment No. 1
Thereto Regarding Trading in Sub-Penny Increments

 December 14, 2005.
    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 November 1, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (the ``CHX''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. On December
7, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Form 19b-4 dated December 7, 2005. (``Amendment No.
1''). In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Deleted any references
to customer orders to make clear that a specialist must not ``step
ahead'' of any order in the book (not just customer orders) by less
than $0.01; (2) deleted a proposed sentence relating to a
specialist's trading in other markets; (3) revised the rule text to
confirm the smallest increment ($0.0001) in which an order may be
executed on the Exchange; and (4) made clear that this proposal
relates only to the Exchange's current trading model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules to
permit Exchange participants to execute orders in sub-penny increments.
The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, at the

Exchange's principal office, and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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
    Under the Exchange's existing trading rules, the Exchange's
participants may not bid or offer in increments below $0.01.\4\ Through
this filing, the Exchange seeks to permit its participants to execute
trades in sub-penny increments and to establish rules that regulate the
instances when a specialist may trade in sub-penny increments against
incoming orders

when there are orders in the specialist's book.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange does not currently have a rule that sets a
minimum increment at which trades can occur. Its rule relating to
minimum variations specifically refers to variations at which bids
or offers may be made on the Exchange. See Article XX, Rule 22.
    \5\ The Exchange intends to file a separate proposal to permit
its participants and customers, beginning with the compliance date
of Rule 612, to bid or offer in sub-penny increments in Nasdaq/NM
securities, when those bids or offers are priced less than $1.00 per
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the proposed rule change would provide that
Exchange participants may execute transactions in sub-penny
increments.\6\ As noted above, there is not currently an Exchange rule
that prohibits this practice, but the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to establish that trading in sub-penny increments is
specifically permitted. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
allow its participants to execute transactions in sub-penny increments
because other markets permit trading in these increments and the
Exchange and its participants would be at a competitive disadvantage if
this trading were not permitted.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed Article XX, Rule 22(b).
    \7\ In addition, although Rule 612 of Regulation NMS
specifically prohibits the display, ranking, or acceptance of a bid,
offer, or order in sub-penny increments where the bid, offer, or
order is priced at or above $1.00, it does not prohibit trading in
sub-penny increments. See 17 CFR 242.612(a). Indeed, the Commission,
in the release of the final rules associated with Regulation NMS,
noted that ``Rule 612 will not prohibit a sub-penny execution
resulting from * * * price improvement * * * so long as the
execution did not result from an impermissible sub-penny order or
quotation.'' Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37556 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed rule change would provide that an
Exchange specialist (or a market maker holding a customer order) may
not execute an incoming order in a sub-penny increment that is less
than $0.01 better than a limit order in the specialist's (or market
maker's) book. This prohibition on ``stepping ahead'' of a resting
limit order for less than a penny would be expanded from its current
scope, which applies only to the trading of Nasdaq/NM securities, to
apply to the trading of all securities on the Exchange.\8\ The Exchange
believes that this rule, which provides protection to orders in a
specialist's book, should be extended to orders in listed securities
before an Exchange specialist is permitted to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange's rule relating to sub-penny trading in Nasdaq/
NM securities was first approved in 2001 and has been extended many
times. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44164 (April 6,
2001), 66 FR 19263 (April 13, 2001); 44535 (July 10, 2001), 66 FR
37251 (July 17, 2001) (extending pilot through November 5, 2001);
45062 (November 15, 2001), 66 FR 58768 (November 23, 2001)
(extending pilot through January 14, 2002); 45386 (February 1,
2002), 67 FR 6062 (February 8, 2002) (extending the pilot through
April 15, 2002); 45755 (April 15, 2002), 67 FR 19607 (April 22,
2002) (extending the pilot through September 30, 2002); 46587
(October 2, 2002), 67 FR 63180 (October 10, 2002) (extending the
pilot through January 31, 2003); 47372 (February 14, 2003), 68 FR
8955 (February 26, 2003) (extending the pilot through May 31, 2003);
47951 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 34448 (June 9, 2003) (extending the
pilot through December 1, 2003); 48871 (December 3, 2003), 68 FR
69097 (December 11, 2003) (extending pilot through June 30, 2004);
49994 (July 9, 2004), 69 FR 42486 (July 15, 2004) (extending pilot
through June 30, 2005); and 52326 (August 23, 2005), 70 FR 51394
(August 30, 2005). provide sub-penny price improvement to an inbound
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule change would apply only in the Exchange's
current trading model. Within the current model, an Exchange specialist
(or any market maker handling a customer order) typically would provide
sub-penny price improvement to an order either on a manual basis or
through an automated pricing mechanism used by specialist firms to
process orders that are not automatically executed within the
Exchange's systems. The Exchange will re-address issues associated with
sub-penny trading as part of the filing the Exchange will make to
qualify as an ``Automated Trading Center'' under Regulation NMS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the
requirements of Section 6(b).\10\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\
because they would promote just and equitable principles of trade;
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system; and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest by permitting trading to occur in sub-penny
increments on the Exchange while providing protection to customer
orders that are accepted or displayed in penny increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes would
impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal, as
amended, 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 No. SR-CHX-2005-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2005-36. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the CHX. 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 No. SR-CHX-2005-36 and should be submitted on or before January
12, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7670 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11485-11488]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03054]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0431, FRL-10016-26-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities; New York; Section 111(d) State Plan for MSW Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to New York's section 111(d) state plan (the ``State
Plan'') for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills, pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or the ``Act''). The proposed State Plan
revision consists of amendments to New York's ``Landfill Gas Collection
and Control Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' as
well as attendant revisions to ``General Provisions.'' The primary goal
of this regulation is to implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines
(EG) promulgated by the EPA for MSW landfills on August 29, 2016. The
goal of the revised federal EG is to reduce emissions of landfill gas
containing Non-methane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and methane by lowering
the emissions threshold at which an existing MSW landfill must install
and operate a Gas Collection and Control System (GCCS). The emission
threshold reduction will address air emissions from all affected MSW
landfills, including NMOC and methane. The reduction of emissions will
improve air quality and protect the public health from exposure to
landfill gas emissions.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2020-0431 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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.
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file-sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fausto Taveras, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-
1866, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Supplementary Information section is
arranged as follows:

I. EPA Action
    A. What action is the EPA proposing today?
    B. Who is affected by New York's revised State Plan?
II. Background
    A. What is a state plan?
    B. Why is the EPA requiring New York to submit a revised MSW
landfill state plan?
    C. What are the requirements for a revised MSW landfill state
plan?
    D. What revisions did the EPA make to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf
on August 29, 2016?
III. New York's State Plan
    A. What is contained in the New York's revised State Plan?
    B. What approval criteria did we use to evaluate New York's
revised State Plan?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. What is the EPA's conclusion?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA Action

A. What action is the EPA proposing today?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the State of New York's revised
section 111(d) state plan for MSW landfills, for the purpose of
incorporating the adoption of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations (NYCRR) Part 208. In a letter dated December 11, 2019, the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), on
behalf of the State of New York, submitted to the EPA a state plan
entitled, ``Landfill Gas Collection and Control Systems for Certain
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' which contains a New York State-
approved regulation for the purpose of lowering the emissions threshold
within MSW landfills through the installation of Gas Collection and
Control Systems (GCCS). The State Plan incorporates by reference the
revised EG codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf, which applies to MSW
landfills that have accepted waste at any

time since November 8, 1987, and commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification on or before July 17, 2014.
    In accordance with the CAA, New York previously submitted a state
plan on October 8, 1998, which was approved by the EPA on July 19,
1999. (See 64 FR 38582). New York submitted a revised State Plan dated
December 11, 2019 to fulfill the requirements of section 111(d) of the
Act. The EPA is proposing to approve New York's State Plan revision
since it applies to major sources of NMOC and methane emissions. This
proposed approval, once finalized and effective, will render New York's
revised MSW rule federally enforceable.

B. Who is affected by New York's revised State Plan?

    New York's revised State Plan applies to existing MSW landfills
with a design capacity threshold of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5
million cubic meters of waste. Existing MSW landfills are landfills
that have accepted waste after November 8, 1987, and began
construction, reconstruction, or modification on or prior to July 17,
2014.

II. Background

A. What is a state plan?

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' directs the EPA to establish emission standards
for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger
the public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the
process by which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance
for existing sources. When NSPS are promulgated for new sources,
section 111(d) and EPA regulations require that the EPA publish an
Emission Guideline (EG) to regulate the same pollutants from existing
facilities. States in which existing facilities are found must develop
a state plan to adopt the requirements of the EG into the state's body
of regulations. States must also include in their state plans other
requirements, such as inventories, legal authority, reporting and
recordkeeping, and public participation documentation, to demonstrate
their ability to enforce the state plans. State plan submittal and
revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be consistent with the
applicable EG, in this case 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf, and the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart B, and part 62 subpart A. Under
CAA section 111(d), states are required to submit state plan revisions
within three years after promulgation of the EPA's emission guidelines
in order to incorporate the federal provisions, unless otherwise
specified within the emission guidelines. The original deadline
specified within 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf for a state plan to be
submitted to the EPA was May 30, 2017; as amended on August 26, 2019,
the new deadline to submit a state plan became August 29, 2019. See 40
CFR 60.30f(b); 84 FR 44547, 44556 (Aug. 26, 2019).

B. Why is the EPA requiring New York to submit a revised MSW landfill
state plan?

    On March 12, 1996, the EPA promulgated federal Emission Guidelines
(EG), codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cc, ``Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.'' 61 FR 9905 (Mar. 12, 1996).
Under this EG, a state plan must include the installation of a gas
collection and control system at each MSW landfill that accepted waste
after November 8, 1987, has a design capacity greater than or equal to
2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters, and that emits NMOC at a
rate of 50 Mg per year or more. See 40 CFR 60.33c(b). In accordance
with section 111 of the CAA, on September 24, 2001, the NYSDEC
promulgated 6 NYCRR Part 208, ``Landfill Gas Collection and Control
Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' in compliance
with the EPA's federal EG for MSW landfills 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cc.
    Due to the significant changes within the landfill industry, such
as increased scientific understanding of landfill gas emissions, and
changes in operation practices, as well as increase in landfill size
and age, the EPA determined that it was appropriate to update the 1996
EG. As a result, on August 29, 2016, the EPA promulgated a revised EG,
codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf, entitled, ``Emission Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.'' See 81 FR
59275 (Aug. 29, 2016). The revised EG updated the control requirements,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW
landfill sources. The revised EG is designed to significantly reduce
emissions of landfill gas containing NMOC and methane by further
reducing the emissions threshold at which a landfill must install and
operate a GCCS. In order to continue complying with the Act and the
newly adopted EG, on August 5, 2019, New York adopted its revised 6
NYCRR Part 208, ``Landfill Gas Collection and Control Systems for
Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' and amended Part 200,
``General Provisions,'' with an effective date of September 4, 2019.
The purpose of the revisions was to incorporate by reference the
revised EG for MSW landfills promulgated at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf.
    On August 26, 2019, the EPA finalized a rule (referred to as the
``Ba Rule'') that amended the revised EG codified at 40 CFR part 60
subpart Cf. See 84 FR 44547 (Aug. 26, 2019). In a separate regulatory
action, entitled, ``Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing
Regulations,'' the EPA finalized revisions to the old implementing
regulations for EG. See 84 FR 32520 (Jul. 8, 2019). Specifically, the
new implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ba amended the
timing requirements in 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.27 for the submission of
state plans, the EPA's review of state plans, and the issuance of
federal plans. See 40 CFR 60.23a and 60.27a. Since New York's revised
State Plan was submitted after the final Ba rule amendments, the plan
was evaluated in accordance with the new implementing regulations. The
EPA is proposing to approve New York's State Plan since it is at least
as protective as the standards set forth in the EG, as amended on
August 29, 2016, and is in accordance with the new Ba implementing
regulations.

C. What are the requirements for a revised MSW landfill state plan?

    Under the new Ba implementing regulations, a section 111(d) state
plan submittal must meet the completeness requirements of 40 CFR part
60 subpart Ba, sections 60.23a and 60.27a(g). Section 60.27a(g) states
in relevant part, ``Any plan or plan revision that a State submits to
the EPA, and that has not been determined by the EPA by the date 6
months after receipt of the submission to have failed to meet the
minimum criteria, shall on that date be deemed by operation of law to
meet such minimum criteria.'' See 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(1). New York
submitted its plan to the EPA on December 11, 2019. Since more than six
months have passed since the date of the plan submission, the plan is
deemed to have met the completeness criteria contained in 40 CFR
60.27a(g).
    The EPA has reviewed the substance of New York's revised State Plan
in accordance with the EG at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf, as amended on
August 29, 2016. Subpart Cf establishes EG and compliance times for the
control of designated pollutants from certain

designated MSW landfills. Subpart Cf requires that MSW landfills that
have a design capacity of greater than or equal to 2.5 Mg by mass and
2.5 million cubic meters by volume incorporate a GCCS if they exceed
the emission threshold. The amended EG apply to landfills that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before
July 17, 2014, and have accepted waste at any time since November 8,
1987. States with affected facilities are required to submit a section
111(d) state plan to implement and enforce all provisions of the EG, as
amended on August 29, 2016, and codified at subpart Cf.

D. What revisions did the EPA make to the EG, as amended on August 29,
2016, and codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf?

    Landfills are the third largest source of human-related methane
emissions in the United States.\1\ Methane is a potent greenhouse gas
that is 28 to 36 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping
heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period.\2\ For these reasons,
and due to significant changes within the landfill industry that
allowed for additional reduction of emissions at a reasonable cost, the
EPA updated its emission guidelines that were adopted in 1996 on August
29, 2016. In addition to revisions to the EG and compliance times for
existing MSW landfills, the control requirements, monitoring,
reporting, and record-keeping provisions were also updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``[MSW] landfills are the third-largest source of human-
related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for
approximately 15.1 percent of these emissions in 2018.'' See https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised EG is designed to further reduce emissions of landfill
gas containing NMOC and methane. The revised EG lowers the emission
threshold at which a landfill must install and operate a GCCS. Under
the 1996 EG, the emission threshold at which MSW landfills were
required to install and operate a GCCS was 50 Mg/year of NMOC. By
contrast the revised EG reduces the threshold for installing a GCCS to
34 Mg/year for active MSW landfills. Closed MSW landfills will retain
the threshold of 50 Mg/year of NMOC for installing a GCCS. Other major
revisions to the EG include revisions to surface emissions monitoring,
wellhead monitoring, and address the definition of landfill gas
treatment system.
    A summary of major provisions in the revised EG include the
following:
     Retention of the design capacity threshold of 2.5 million
Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters of waste in order for the rule to
apply.
     A new alternative modeling procedure, referred to as
``Tier 4,'' used to determine when to install a GCCS.
     Clarification of the definition of Landfill Gas Treatment
and use of treated landfill gas.
     Removal of wellhead oxygen/nitrogen operational standards
and corresponding corrective action for their exceedances.
     Addition of an electronic reporting requirement using the
EPA's electronic reporting tool (ERT).
     Updated criteria for capping, removing, or decommissioning
a portion of the GCCS in low-producing landfill gas areas.
     Addition of a requirement that landfills must conduct
surface emission monitoring (SEM) at all cover penetrations and
openings within the area of the landfill in which the waste has been
placed and where a GCCS is required.
     New provisions for startup, shutdown, and malfunction
periods.
    New York's revised State Plan, dated December 11, 2019, for
existing MSW landfills, incorporates by reference all the revisions to
the EG as of August 29, 2016, codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf.

III. New York's State Plan

A. What is contained in the New York revised State Plan?

    In order to implement the 2016 amended EG for existing MSW
landfills located in New York state, NYSDEC submitted its revised
section 111(d) state plan for existing MSW landfills, dated December
11, 2019, which made revisions to Title 6 of the NYCRR, at Parts 200
and 208.
    On August 5, 2019, New York repealed previously enacted 6 NYCRR
Part 208, and replaced it with a newly adopted Part 208, ``Landfill Gas
Collection and Control Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills,'' and simultaneously revised Part 200, ``General
Provisions.'' \3\ The majority of MSW landfills that are regulated by
Part 208 are located in rural communities throughout New York state.
The revised rule is designed to reduce emissions of NMOC and methane
from these landfills by lowering the emission threshold at which the
owners and operators of these landfills must install a GCCS. The
emission guidelines and revised Part 208 retain the formal design
capacity threshold of 2.5 Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters of waste for
MSW landfills. Part 208 defines existing MSW landfills as landfills
that accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and began construction,
reconstruction, or modification prior to July 17, 2014. Consistent with
the revised EG promulgated at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf, the trigger
threshold for installing a GCCS in Part 208 is reduced from 50 Mg/year
to 34 Mg/year of NMOC for active MSW landfills. Since closed landfills
do not produce as much landfill gas as an active landfill, the trigger
threshold for installing a GCCS remains at 50 Mg/year of NMOC for
closed MSW landfills. Landfill operators and owners had thirty days
from the adoption date of the revised Parts 200 and 208 to comply with
the revised regulation, or until September 4, 2019. In order to be
considered for the ``closed landfill subcategory,'' MSW landfills had
to submit a closure report within one year after the revised Part 208
became effective, i.e., by September 4, 2020. New York's revised rule
also includes the alternative site-specific emission threshold
determination methodology to determine when a landfill must install a
GCCS, referred to as Tier 4. Tier 4 is based on SEM and requires four
consecutive quarters of surface emissions below 500 parts per million
(ppm) of methane, followed by quarterly SEM reports for active
landfills and annual SEM reports for closed landfills. Both active and
closed landfills are required to notify delegated authorities thirty
days prior to conducting the Tier 4 test so that officials can be
present to observe the SEM, keep up-to-date records of the SEM readily
accessible for at least five years, and send annual reports to NYSDEC
of the SEM monitoring results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ New York previously codified landfill regulations at NYCRR
Part 360, ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permitting,'' which were
included in New York's section 111(d) state plan that was submitted
on October 8, 1998 and approved by the EPA on July 19, 1999. (See 64
FR 38582, 38585). To avoid duplication between NYSDEC's Division of
Air Resources and Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, and to
add compliance milestones pursuant to 40 CFR 60.23, NYSDEC
transferred the EG requirements from NYCRR Part 360 to Part 208 in
2001. No revisions to the State Plan were made at that time to
reflect the regulatory transfer within NYSDEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSDEC's revised Part 208 also incorporates the removal of certain
wellhead oxygen/nitrogen operational standards in 40 CFR part 60
subpart Cf. Owners and operators are no longer required to report or
take corrective action based on exceedances of specified operational
standards for nitrogen/oxygen levels at wellheads. However, landfill
owners or operators

must continue to monitor and maintain records of nitrogen/oxygen levels
on a monthly basis, in order to make any necessary adjustments to the
GCCS. New York's revised Part 208 adopts the federally mandated
electronic reporting requirements, including, certain performance test
reports, NMOC emission rate reports, annual reports, Tier 4 emission
rate reports, and wet landfilling practices. The test reports are
submitted through the EPA web portal, known as the Central Data
Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI, or the ERT). New requirements for landfill gas
treatment were developed within the revised Part 208 in compliance with
the federal EG. Landfills are required to develop a site-specific
treatment system monitoring plan, and keep records demonstrating
effective monitoring of filtration, dewatering, and compression system
performance. The treatment system monitoring plan must be submitted as
part of a Title V permit application, and the monitoring parameters
would be included in the permit as applicable enforceable conditions.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve New York's revised State Plan
for existing MSW landfills, since it includes all elements required by
the amended EG in 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf.

B. What approval criteria did we use to evaluate New York's revised
State Plan?

    The EPA reviewed the substance of New York's revised State Plan for
approval based on the requirements set forth in 40 CFR 60.24 through
60.26, ``Subpart B-Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated
Facilities;'' 40 CFR 60.23a, ``Adoption and submittal of State plans;
public hearings;'' 40 CFR 60.27a, ``Actions by the Administrator;'' 40
CFR part 60 subpart Cf, ``Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills;'' and 40 CFR part 62 subpart A,
``General Provisions'' for ``Approval and Promulgation of State Plans
for Designated Facilities and Pollutants.''

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is also proposing to incorporate by
reference NYSDEC rules discussed in section III of this preamble in
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials available through the docket for
this action, EPA-R02_OAR-2020-0431, at http://www.regulations.gov, and
at the EPA Region II Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. What is the EPA's Conclusion?

    The EPA has determined that New York's revised State Plan meets all
the applicable approval criteria in 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf, 40 CFR
60.24 through 60.26, 40 CFR 60.23a; 40 CFR 60.27a, and 40 CFR part 62
subpart A. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve New York State's
section 111(d) revised State Plan for existing MSW landfills, which
includes revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 208, ``Landfill Gas Collection and
Control Systems for Certain Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' and Part
200, ``General Provisions,'' with an effective date of September 4,
2019.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Pursuant to EPA regulations, the Administrator may approve a plan
or any portion thereof upon a determination that it meets sections
111(d) and 129 of the Act and applicable regulations. See 40 CFR 62.02.
    Accordingly, this action, if finalized, would merely approve state
law that meets federal requirements, and would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action, if finalized:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)); and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR
3821 (Jan. 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 (Aug. 10, 1999));
     Is not an ``economically significant'' regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885 (April 23, 1997));
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001));
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)).
    In addition, this proposed rule is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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 compliance costs on tribal governments,
or preempt tribal law, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal.

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

    Dated: February 10, 2021.
Walter Mugdan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2021-03054 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation/ OAQPS 2. OMB control number b. __ None a. __ 2_ 0 6_ 0 _  _ 0_ 3_ 9 _ 1 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b. Revision of a currently approved collection c. x Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: ______/______/______ c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: ______/______

7. Title NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production 8. Agency form number( s) ( if applicable)

EPA ICR 1831.02 9. Keywords Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, Ferroalloy, Furnace 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of new and existing facilities that manufacture ferromanganese or silicomanganese and are sources or are co located at major sources. Respondents would submit notification and information indicating the performance of air pollution controls. This information is needed to ensure compliance with the rule.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ___ Individuals or households d.___ Farms b. P Business or other for profit e.___ Federal Government c. ___ Not for profit institutions f. ___ State, Local, or Tribal Governments 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents __________________ 1____________ b. Total annual responses _________________ 20 ___________ 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically __________ 0_ % c. Total annual hours requested ______________ _ 746___________ d. Current OMB inventory ______________ 1684 _______ __ e. Difference ______________ _ 938___________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change ______________  938__________ 2. Adjustment _____________ __ 0___________ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs _______ 0________________ b. Total annual costs ( O& M) ___________ 0________________ c. Total annualized cost requested ___________ 0________________ d. Current OMB inventory _________ _ 0________________ e. Difference ___________ 0________________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change ______________ 0________________ 2. Adjustment ______________ 0_________________

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ____ Application for benefits e. ____ Program planning or management b. ____ Program evaluation f. ____ Research c. ____ General purpose statistics g. _ X__ Regulatory or compliance d. ____ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. G On occasion 2. X Weekly 3. X Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. G Biennially 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer question regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Conrad Chin, EPA/ Metals Group ( MD 13)

Phone: ( 919) 541 1512 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3):

( I) Why the information is being collected;

( ii) Use of information;

( iii) Burden estimate;

( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective manage ment and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Information Collection ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95