[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22701]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0107; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASW-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Morgan City, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Morgan City, LA. This action due to the
cancellation of the standard instrument approach procedures at the
heliport making the airspace no longer necessary.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 10, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Witucki, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Morgan City, LA.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (84 FR 9260; March 14, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0107 to
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Morgan City, LA. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be removed from the
Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by: Removing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth at Morgan City, LA.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ASW LA E5 Morgan City, LA [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 10, 2019.
Johanna Forkner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-10358 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12513-12518]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04568]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94332; File No. SR-MEMX-2021-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Suspension of and Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule To Adopt
Connectivity Fees

February 28, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On December 30, 2021, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change (File Number SR-MEMX-2021-22) to amend the Exchange's Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to adopt certain connectivity fees. The
proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 14, 2022.\4\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
proposed rule change.\5\ Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission is hereby: (i) Temporarily suspending File Number SR-MEMX-
2021-22; and (ii) instituting proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove File Number SR-MEMX-2021-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93937 (January 10,
2022), 87 FR 2466 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, Healthy
Markets Association, dated January 26, 2022. The commenter asserts
that the Exchange did not address the Exchange's ownership structure
(where a number of broker-dealers own interests in the holding
company that controls the Exchange), which the commenter states can
result in Member-owners recouping the costs of the new fees, as well
as the additional revenues collected from non-owners, which the
commenter characterized as a ``disparate impact.''
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    MEMX provides Members and certain non-Members (i.e., service
bureaus and extranets) with physical connectivity and application
sessions (also known as ``logical ports'') to access and participate on
its market (collectively, ``connectivity services''). Prior to
implementation of the proposed rule change, the Exchange did not impose
a fee for such connectivity services.\7\ The Exchange now proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule to adopt fees for connectivity services.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge $6,000 per month for each
physical connection in the data center where the Exchange primarily
operates under normal market conditions (``Primary Data Center'') and
$3,000 per month for each physical connection in the Exchange's backup
data center (``Secondary Data Center'').\8\ In addition, the Exchange
proposes to charge a fee of $450 per month for each application session
used for order entry (``Order Entry Port'') and $450 per month for each
application session used for receipt of drop copies (``Drop Copy
Port'') in the Exchange's Primary Data Center.\9\ As proposed, fees for
connectivity services would be assessed based on each active
connectivity service product at the close of business on the first day
of each month.\10\ The Exchange represents that it will periodically
review the costs applicable to providing connectivity services and
propose changes to its fees as appropriate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice at 2466. The Exchange explained that ``[t]he
objective of this approach was to eliminate any fee-based barriers
to connectivity for Members when MEMX launched as a national
securities exchange in 2020, and it was successful in achieving this
objective in that a significant number of Members are directly or
indirectly connected to the Exchange.'' Id. at 2467.
    \8\ See id. at 2467.
    \9\ See id. The Exchange is not proposing to charge for: (1)
Order Entry Ports or Drop Copy Ports in the Secondary Data Center,
or (2) Test Facility Ports or MEMOIR Gap Fill Ports. Id. at 2470. A
``drop copy'' refers to information on trades executed on the
Exchange.
    \10\ See id. at n.12. If a product is cancelled by a Member's
submission of a written request or via the MEMX User Portal prior to
such fee being assessed then the Member will not be obligated to pay
the applicable product fee. See id.
    \11\ See id. at 2469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange states its belief that there is ``competition
for connectivity to the Exchange'' that acts to constrain its ability
to set pricing for connectivity services,\12\ it also believes that
``each exchange should take extra care to be able to demonstrate that
[fees for connectivity services] are based on its costs and reasonable
business needs.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id. at 2472.
    \13\ See id. at 2466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Changes

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\14\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\15\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule changes is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the proposal ``reflects a simple,
competitive, reasonable, and equitable pricing structure designed to
permit the Exchange to cover certain fixed costs that it incurs for
providing connectivity services, which are discounted when compared to
products and services offered by competitors.'' \16\ With respect to
competition, the Exchange states that it ``believes that competitive
forces are in effect and that if the proposed fees for connectivity
services were unreasonable that the Exchange would lose current or
prospective Members and market

share.'' \17\ For example, the Exchange cites the example of extranets
and service bureaus that compete with MEMX to provide Members and non-
Members with physical connectivity to the Exchange. MEMX notes that
``nearly half of the Exchange's Members do not have a physical
connection provided by the Exchange and instead must use a third party
provider,'' though MEMX acknowledges that application sessions are
necessary to submit orders to MEMX such that indirectly connected users
still will need to pay the application session fee to the Exchange or
through the vendor.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Notice, supra note 4 at 2471.
    \17\ Id. at 2473. The Exchange represents that because it has
not previously charged fees for connectivity and logical ports, it
does not have comprehensive exchange-specific data to determine the
impact of the proposed fees and will not have such data until the
fees are actually imposed. However, the Exchange states that it
understands that certain Members may be considering modifying the
way that they connect to the Exchange in response to the proposed
fees. See id.
    \18\ See id. at 2472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In further support of the proposal, the Exchange presents
information on its costs and expected revenues from connectivity
services, which the Exchange uses to support its position that the
proposed fees for connectivity services are consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because they would permit the Exchange to recover
the costs of providing connectivity services to Members and non-
Members.\19\ In its filing, MEMX provides a breakdown and summary of
the costs of providing physical connectivity and application sessions
and describes the various line-items that it classifies into several
``cost drivers.'' MEMX represents that it allocated such expenses
``without double-counting any expenses.'' \20\ Specifically, MEMX
details its direct and allocated costs categorized according to those
seven cost drivers, which result in a combined aggregate monthly cost
of $1,143,715 ($795,789 for physical connectivity and $347,926 for
application sessions).\21\ The Exchange states that the proposed fees
would ``not result in excessive pricing or supracompetitive profit,''
as it projects a ``modest profit'' with revenue of $1,233,750 based on
current connectivity services usage,\22\ representing a markup of
approximately 8%.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 2473.
    \20\ Id. at 2469.
    \21\ Id. at 2467-68. MEMX notes that since its inception it has
borne 100% of the connectivity costs because it currently offers
connectivity services for free. Id.
    \22\ Id. at 2473-74. The Exchange asserts that it has four
primary sources of revenue from which it can potentially fund
operations: transaction fees, connectivity services fees, membership
and regulatory fees, and market data fees. The Exchange further
states it must cover its expenses from one of these four sources.
Id.
    \23\ Id. at 2473-74. The Exchange notes that it ``anticipates
(and encourages) Members and non-Members to more closely evaluate
their connectivity services usage'' once MEMX begins charging for
the services. Id. As a result, the Exchange notes, actual Exchange
revenue resulting from the proposed fees may be less than the
Exchange's estimate. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MEMX states that its proposed fees are designed ``to cover the
aggregate costs of providing connectivity services [to Members and non-
Members] and to recoup some of the costs already born by the Exchange
to create and offer its services. . . .'' \24\ The Exchange further
states that the proposed fees, specifically charging per connection,
constitute an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because the
Exchange's ``incremental aggregate costs for all connectivity services
are disproportionately related to Members with higher message traffic
and/or Members with more complicated connections established with the
Exchange.'' \25\ Additionally, the Exchange explains that these Members
consume the most bandwidth \26\ of the network and transact the ``vast
majority'' of Exchange volume.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. The Exchange asserts that its proposed fees do not yet
constitute a true ``markup'' because the Exchange has not recovered
the initial costs of building the network and infrastructure
necessary to offer connectivity services, as it did not previously
charge any fees for connectivity services since it began operations.
See id. at 2469.
    \25\ Id. at 2470.
    \26\ The Exchange states that although it offers physical
connections of different bandwidths (10Gb, 25Gb, 40Gb, and 100Gb),
it does not propose to charge different prices for such connections
and it does not believe its costs increase incrementally based on
the size of the physical connection. It instead believes that
``individual connections and the number of separate and disparate
connections are the primary drivers'' of the Exchange's costs. Id.
at 2474 n. 29.
    \27\ The Exchange also notes that those users require high-touch
network support services, including network monitoring, reporting,
and support services. Id. at 2473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\28\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to, among other things, (1) provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers,
and other persons using the exchange's facilities; \30\ (2) perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers; \31\ and (3) not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee changes, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to
establish fees for connectivity to the Exchange is consistent with the
statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange
under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the
proposed rule changes satisfy the standards under the Act and the rules
thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
changes, the Commission has considered the proposed rules' impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\35\ and

19(b)(2)(B) \36\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis of
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\37\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of whether the Exchange has sufficiently
demonstrated how the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections
6(b)(4),\38\ 6(b)(5),\39\ and 6(b)(8) \40\ of the Act. Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act requires that the rules of a national securities exchange
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed, among other things, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following aspects of the proposals and asks
commenters to submit data where appropriate to support their views:
    1. Cost Estimates and Allocation. MEMX argues that competition acts
to constrain its proposed fees but also presents a cost-based analysis
of its proposed fees because MEMX says it believes that exchanges
should meet ``very high standards of transparency'' when demonstrating
why a new fee or fee increase is consistent with the Exchange Act.\41\
The Exchange states specifically that an exchange should take ``extra
care'' to ``demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and
reasonable business needs.'' \42\ MEMX believes that it has attempted
to be ``especially diligent in assessing those fees in a transparent
way against its own aggregate costs of providing the related service. .
. .'' \43\ According to the Exchange, it employed a methodology that
``narrowly limits the aggregate cost elements considered to those
closely and directly related to the particular product offering.'' \44\
MEMX classified its connectivity services expenses according to the
following cost drivers: Human resources (i.e., personnel),
infrastructure and connectivity technology (servers, switches, etc.),
data center costs, hardware and software licenses, monthly
depreciation, allocated shared expenses.\45\ It then applied an
estimated allocation of each cost driver to each connectivity service,
determining that the total monthly cost was $795,789 \46\ to offer
physical connectivity and $347,926 to offer application services.\47\
The Exchange lists the individual line-item costs in its filing, and
describes some of the criteria included in each cost driver.\48\ Do
commenters believe that the cost drivers the Exchange has considered
are sufficiently clear and complete? Do commenters believe that the
Exchange should consider additional cost drivers or clarify the cost
drivers it identified? If so, which ones? Do commenters believe that
the Exchange has provided sufficient detail about how it allocated
costs to connectivity services? Across all costs, what are commenters'
views on whether the Exchange has provided sufficient detail on the
elements that go into its connectivity costs, including how it
allocated shared costs to connectivity, to permit an independent review
of its costs and meaningfully assess the reasonableness of the proposed
fees and the corresponding profit margin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 2466.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id. at 2468-69.
    \46\ Id. at 2467-68. The Exchange allocates the following
amounts to each cost driver for providing physical connectivity:
$262,129 for Human Resources, $162,000 for Infrastructure and
Connectivity Technology, $219,000 for Data Center Costs, $4,507 for
Hardware and Software Licenses, $99,328 for Monthly Depreciation,
and $48,826 for Allocated Shared Expenses. For application sessions,
the Exchange allocated $147,029 for Human Resources, $33,358 for
Infrastructure and Connectivity Technology, $108,138 for Hardware
and Software Licenses, and $59,400 for Allocated Shared Expenses.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id. For example, the Exchange stated that Infrastructure
and Connectivity Technology cost includes servers, switches and
related hardware required to provide physical access to the
Exchange, some of which is owned by the Exchange and some of which
is leased by the Exchange in order to allow efficient periodic
technology refreshes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In allocating cost drivers, the Exchange states that it allocated a
total of 21.5% of Human Resources expense to provide connectivity
services, consisting of 13.8% of its personnel costs to provide
physical connections and 7.7% to application sessions.\49\ The Exchange
provides similar information for depreciation and amortization expense,
noting that it allocated approximately 27% of the Exchange's overall
depreciation and amortization expense to connectivity services (19% to
physical connections and 8% to application sessions).\50\ Do commenters
believe that the Exchange sufficiently explained the principles that it
applied in making these determinations, or is further explanation
necessary? For personnel costs, for instance, the Exchange did not
provide the job titles and salaries of persons whose time was accounted
for, nor did it explain the methodology used to determine how much of
an employee's time is devoted to that specific activity. Should the
Exchange identify to which services the remaining percentage of un-
allocated expenses are attributable (e.g., what services or fees are
associated with the

73% of applicable depreciation and amortization expenses the Exchange
does not allocate to connectivity services)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id. at 2468. The Exchange explained that it in calculating
the Human Resource cost to be allocated to physical connections, the
Exchange allocated ``network infrastructure personnel with a high
percentage of the cost of such personnel (75%) given their focus on
functions necessary to provide physical connections'' and a smaller
percentage (19%) of the cost associated with certain personnel who
``work closely with and support network infrastructure personnel.''
The Exchange also stated that for application sessions, it allocated
``much smaller percentages (11% or less)'' of Human Resources costs
across a wider range of personnel groups because a ``much wider
range of personnel'' are involved in providing application sessions
but it is not a primary or full-time function for them.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MEMX states it calculated the Human Resources cost using a
``blended rate of compensation reflecting salary, equity and bonus
compensation, benefits, payroll taxes, and 401(k) matching
contributions.'' \51\ Do commenters believe that those are the
appropriate criteria? In particular, is it appropriate to include stock
compensation and annual cash bonuses in a blended compensation rate for
the purpose of assessing connectivity costs if those items are based on
an exchange's overall profitability or performance and not the
individual employee's performance in providing connectivity services
(and thus not directly attributable to connectivity)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its cost analysis was based on its first
year of operations and projections for next year and states that it
believes that its costs will remain similar in future years.\52\ The
Exchange recognizes, however, the possibility that costs may increase
or decrease.\53\ Do commenters expect costs incurred based on MEMX's
first year of operations to be generally representative of an
exchange's expected costs going forward, or should an exchange present
an estimated range of costs with an explanation of how profit margins
could vary along with the cost estimates? The Exchange also states that
it seeks to ``recoup some of the costs already borne by the Exchange to
create and offer its services'' \54\ but does not distinguish between
current-year costs and the ``already borne'' costs it seeks to recover
or provide detail on those prior costs.\55\ Do commenters think MEMX
should elaborate on how and to what extent the proposed fees recoup
past expenses?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id. at 2469.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id. at 2467.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Profit Margin. The Exchange states its proposed fees would not
result in supracompetitive profits,\56\ and projects an 8% profit
margin resulting from costs to provide connectivity services of
$1,143,715 and projected revenue of approximately $1,233,750.\57\ The
Exchange believes that this is a ``modest profit'' \58\ that represents
a ``reasonable markup'' over cost given factors that include the ``lack
of other costs to participate on the Exchange'' and the Exchange
maintaining a high performing and stable platform.\59\ In arriving at
its revenue estimate (and 8% profit margin), the Exchange has assumed
that the current number of physical connections (143) \60\ and
application sessions (835) \61\ will remain constant once the proposed
fees are in place. Also, it assumes that all 143 physical connections
will be to the Primary Data Center, for the proposed fee of $6,000 per
connection. The profit margin is dependent on the accuracy of the cost
projections which, if inflated (intentionally or unintentionally), may
render the projected profit margin meaningless. Further, the margin may
fluctuate due to changes in the number of connections purchased and
increases or decreases in costs. Do commenters find the Exchange's
estimated revenue and profit margin and the assumptions on which they
are based to be appropriate? Do commenters agree that the Exchange's
estimated profit margin would constitute a reasonable rate of return
over costs? What are commenters' views regarding what factors should be
considered in determining what constitutes a reasonable rate of return
for connectivity fees? Do commenters believe that it is relevant to an
assessment of reasonableness that the Exchanges' proposed fees are
lower than those of other exchanges to which the Exchange has compared
its fees? Should an assessment of reasonable rate of return include
consideration of factors other than costs; and if so, what factors
should be considered and why? Should the Exchange provide more
information on the number of physical connections and application
sessions it expects to maintain when it begins charging for
connectivity that was previously provided for free, and an estimate of
the potential change in each when MEMX begins charging for them broken
down by the type of user?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Id. at 2473.
    \57\ Id. at 2474.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ Id. at 2469.
    \60\ Id. at 2468.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MEMX also has proposed to charge a fee of $3,000 per connection to
the Secondary Data Center, which is 50% less than the fee for a
connection to the Primary Data Center. The Exchange's explanation for
the difference in fees is that certain Members are required to
participate in mandatory testing of the Exchange's backup systems,
which would require them to connect to the Secondary Data Center.\62\
The Exchange did not provide a separate estimate of the number of firms
it expects to be subject to the Secondary Data Center fee or how much
revenue it expects to earn from the fee, nor did the Exchange allocate
its connectivity costs between the Primary and Secondary Data Centers.
The Exchange notes that its proposed physical connectivity fee for the
Secondary Data Center is ``well below the cost of providing such
services'' and the Exchange will not recoup the full amount of its
costs.\63\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange should provide
information on its connectivity costs specifically for the Secondary
Data Center as well as additional information to support its assertion
that it will not recover its costs of providing connectivity services
to its backup data center? In addition, should the Exchange clarify how
charging a lower fee for the Secondary Data Center would affect its
projected revenue? Do commenters believe that competitive forces exist
for physical connectivity to the Secondary Data Center, particularly
for those firms that MEMX requires to connect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Id. at 2469.
    \63\ Id. MEMX is not proposing fees for application sessions in
the Secondary Data Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Periodic Reevaluation. The Exchange represents that it will
``periodically review the costs applicable to providing connectivity
services and to propose changes to it fees as appropriate.'' \64\
However, the Exchange has not addressed whether it believes a material
deviation from the anticipated profit margin would warrant the need to
make a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act to increase or
decrease the fees accordingly. In light of the impact that the number
of users paying for connectivity services has on connectivity profit
margins, and the potential for costs to decrease (or increase) over
time, what are commenters' views on the need for exchanges to commit to
reevaluate, on an ongoing and periodic basis, their cost-based
connectivity fees to ensure that they stay in line with their stated
profitability target and do not become unreasonable over time, for
example, by failing to adjust for efficiency gains, cost increases or
decreases, and changes in other fees or services? How formal should
that process be, how often should that reevaluation occur, and what
metrics and thresholds should be considered? How soon after a new
connectivity fee change is implemented should an exchange assess
whether its costs, subscriber, and revenue estimates were accurate and
at what threshold should an exchange commit to file a fee change if its
estimates were inaccurate? Should an initial review take place within
the first 30 days after a

connectivity fee is implemented? 60 days? 90 days? Some other period?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Competition. The Exchange asserts that the its proposed
connectivity fees are subject to competition. In support of its claim,
the Exchange states that connectivity to the Exchange is optional and
says ``there is no regulatory requirement that any market participant
connect to the Exchange, that any participant connect in a particular
manner, or that any participant maintain a certain number of
connections to the Exchange,'' \65\ therefore, if the proposed fees are
too high, Members may cease to connect to the Exchange. However, the
Exchange acknowledges that ``certain Members operate as routing brokers
for other market participants . . . [and a]s an equity exchange with 4%
volume, these routing brokers likely need to maintain a connection to
the Exchange on behalf of their clients.'' \66\ Further, the Exchange
represents that as of November 2021, it had 4.16% of market share and
argues that it ``is not aware of any evidence that a market share of
approximately 4% provides the Exchange with anti-competitive price
power because . . . market participants that choose to connect to the
Exchange have various choices in determining how to do so, including
third party alternatives [e.g., service bureaus, extranet].'' \67\ The
Exchange concludes that ``[t]his, in addition to the fact that not all
broker-dealers are required to connect of the Exchange, supports the
Exchange's conclusion that its pricing is constrained by competition.''
\68\ Do commenters agree that the lack of a regulatory requirement to
connect to an exchange means that there are sufficient competitive
forces to constrain connectivity fees? Are such competitive forces
present for service bureaus and extranets, who are in the business of
providing connectivity services to trading centers, as well as large
market makers? Are competitive forces present when MEMX imposes a
regulatory requirement in its rules for certain members to participate
in mandatory testing of the Exchange's backup systems, thus effectively
requiring those members to purchase connectivity to the Secondary Data
Center? Are there reasons, not presented by the Exchange, why a market
participant would need direct connectivity to the Exchange's Primary
Data Center? Do commenters agree that an exchange with only 4% market
share lacks pricing power sufficient to charge supracompetitive fees?
At what percentage of market share would an exchange have such pricing
power? Should exchanges reevaluate their fees as their market share
increases?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id. at 2471.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also argues that its connectivity fees are constrained
by competitive forces because 44% of its Members do not maintain direct
connectivity to the Exchange,\69\ but rather connect to the Exchange
through a service bureau or extranet.\70\ The Exchange argues that
these Non-Members provide competition for connectivity to the Exchange
as resellers of MEMX connectivity. The Exchange states that it will not
receive any compensation for re-sold physical connectivity, ``thus
constraining the ability of MEMX to set its connectivity pricing as
indirect connectivity is a substitute for direct connectivity.'' \71\
Do commenters believe that resellers of connectivity to the Exchange
provide a competitive restraint on the fees MEMX charges for direct
connectivity? Do commenters believe that resellers offer connectivity
services to market participants effectively at a lower price than what
the Exchange is proposing or do commenters believe that resellers pass-
through the fee charged to them by the Exchange to their customers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Id. at 2469. The Exchange further explained that 44% of its
Members maintain one to two physical ports to connect to the
Exchange's Primary Data Center, while only 12% maintain three or
more such ports. Id.
    \70\ Id. at 2471-2.
    \71\ Id. at 2472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While there may be alternatives for physical connectivity (e.g.,
using a third party service provider), application sessions are not
optional for those that do connect to the Exchange. Do commenters
believe competition acts as a constraint on application session fees?
If so, how?
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \72\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\73\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\74\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \73\ See id.
    \74\ See id.
    \75\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (rejecting the
Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations without
sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings
to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised
herein, including as to whether the proposals are consistent with the
Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by March 25, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 8,
2022.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-MEMX-2021-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2021-22. 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 website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of each Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2021-22 and should be
submitted on or before March 25, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by April 8, 2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\77\ that File Number SR-MEMX-2021-22 be, and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \78\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\78\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04568 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38650]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16624]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9428-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0051]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a two week extension of the public comment
period for the first external review draft of a document titled,
``First External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Lead''
(EPA/600/R-10/075A). The original Federal Register notice announcing
the public comment period was published on May 6, 2011 (76 FR 26284).
This assessment document was prepared by the National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and
Development as part of the review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Lead.

DATES: The public comment period began May 6, 2011. This notice
announces an extension of the deadline for public comment from July 5,
2011 to July 19, 2011. Comments must be received by July 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The ``First External Review Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead'' will be available primarily via the Web page
under Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-ROM or paper copies will be available.
Contact Ms. Debbie Wales by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>), fax<PHONE_NUMBER>),
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request either of these, and
please provide your name, your mailing address, and the document title,
``First External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Lead''
(EPA/600/R-10/075A) to facilitate processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Dr.
Ellen Kirrane, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Federal Register Notice (76 FR
26284). For information on submitting comments to the docket, please
contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-
566-1752; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 23, 2011.
Darrell A. Winner,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2011-16624 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22989-22990]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-885-000.
    Applicants: Total Peaking Services, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: TPS Order No. 801 Map
Compliance Filing to be effective 5/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150414-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-886-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Conversion of
Premier to DART to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150414-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-887-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.601: Negotiated Rate
Agreement Amendment (Conoco) to be effective 4/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150414-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-888-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 04/14/15
Negotiated Rates--Exelon Generation Company, LLC (HUB) 1985-89 to be
effective 4/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150414-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1088-001.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Non-Conforming
Agreement Compliance (TGS) to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 4/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150414-5244.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/27/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 15, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09553 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61513]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 400

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0318; Notice No. 400-4]
RIN 2120-AK16

Voluntary Licensing of Amateur Rocket Operations; Correction;
Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action delays the effective date for a direct final rule
that was published on August 22, 2012. In that rule, the FAA amends the
scope of its regulations to allow launch operators that conduct certain
amateur rocket launches an opportunity to voluntarily apply for a
commercial space transportation license or experimental permit. The FAA
has received several adverse comments to this rule, and delays the
effective date to allow time for adequate analysis and a final
determination. This document also corrects the regulatory
identification number on the original publication.

DATES: The effective date for the direct final rule published on August
22, 2012, was scheduled to be October 9, 2012, and is delayed until
November 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions, contact
Shirley McBride, Senior Transportation Industry Analyst, Regulations
and Analysis Division, AST-300, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
7470; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
legal questions, contact Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney for
Commercial Space Transportation, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Regulations Division, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3150; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 22, 2012, the FAA published the direct final rule
entitled, ``Voluntary Licensing of Amateur Rocket Operations'' (77 FR
50584). In this rule, the FAA is amending the scope of its regulations
to allow launch operators that conduct certain amateur rocket launches
an opportunity to voluntarily apply for a commercial space
transportation license or experimental permit. This rule received 4
adverse comments prior to comment period closing on September 21, 2012.
The rule contained the effective date of October 9, 2012.

Correction

    The original publication contained an incorrect regulatory
identification number (RIN). This document contains the correct RIN
2120-AK16.

Reason for Delay of Effective Date

    A direct final rule is based on the Administrative Procedure Act's
good cause exception to prior notice and comment procedures, 5 U.S.C.
553. This exception is used where we have found that prior public
comment procedure may be unnecessary because adverse comments are not
expected. In determining whether an adverse comment is significant
enough to end a rulemaking, we consider whether the comment would
warrant a substantive response in a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
    The effective date of a direct final rule is normally a minimum of
30 calendar days after the end of the comment period. This rule
published with an effective date of 15 calendar days after the end of
the comment period to accommodate NASA's deadline in funding licensed
launches. However, we received 4 substantive comments that require
further analysis and determination. The FAA needs additional time to
address the comments received and decide on the appropriate action.

Conclusion

    Accordingly, the effective date for Notice No. 400-4 is delayed
until November 8, 2012.

    Issued in Washington, DC, October 4, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-25021 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 MERCER COUNTY, KENTUCKY Mercer County is located in the Bluegrass Region of central Kentucky. It is not a part of the Lexington Fayette County, Kentucky Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA) and is located southwest of Fayette and Woodford Counties.

EPA s June 29, 2004 proposal on appropriate designations for Kentucky included Mercer County as nonattainment based on the following criteria:

  EPA indicates that Mercer County has significant ( Based on 10,000 tpy of any pollutant being significant) SOx ( only pollutant over 10,000 tpy), NOx, and PM emissions that potentially contribute to the violating MSA monitor.

Emissions Data Mercer County, Kentucky, was not discussed in Kentucky s February recommendations. Based on the original guidance from U. S. EPA in April 2003, states were required to review possible emissions contributions for counties within an MSA boundary, if a monitor within the MSA was in violation of the PM2.5 standard.

Later, EPA suggested that states look outside the MSA boundaries if there was the possibility that emissions from a county outside the MSA were having a significant impact on monitors within the MSA. Kentucky chose to review counties within the MSA.

However, in EPA s June 29, 2004 letters to states, EPA looked outside the original MSA boundaries to determine if large emissions contributions from adjacent areas were having an impact on PM2.5 levels in many of the areas.

Mercer County has been included because it contains an identifiable large emitting facility ( e. g., power plant), which EPA believes contributes to the nearby nonattainment problem. It is important to note here that EPA also used the 2001 NEI data, which provided different data than the data EPA had recommended that states use. Neither the 2001 NEI data, nor the methodology used in the calculations for that inventory have been made available to states for review.

Mercer County emits 74% of SOx emissions from the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitors. A similar comparison can be made with both NOx and PM. Mercer County s NOx emissions rank at 20% of the total EPA recommended areas, and PM at 34%. 2 See Figures 1 4 below. Despite this data, the CAIR rule will significantly reduce emissions from this facility as discussed below.

Figure 1 Lexington Area SOx Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Scott 0% Jessamine 0% Bourbon 0% Madison 2% Clark 14% Fayette 6% Woodford 4% Mercer 74%

Figure 2 Lexington Area 2001 NOX Emissions Woodford 8%

Mercer 20% Clark 14%

Madison 12% Scott 8% Jessamine 5% Bourbon 3% Fayette 30% 3 Figure 3 Fayette Area PM Emissions in EPA Proposed Nonattainment Counties Woodford 6% Scott 7% Jessamine 6%

Mercer 34% Madison 10% Clark 13% Fayette 19% Bourbon 5%

Figure 4 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 T o n s P e r Y e a r Fayette Clark Madison Mercer Woodford Scott Jessamine Bourbon Lexington Area Counties Emissions 2001 PM SOx NOx VOC NH3 4 Additional Regional/ National Controls The implementation of new federal rules to decrease the amount of sulfur in both gasoline and diesel fuel will significantly decrease the amount of SO2 in the entire area. Because of the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, in 2007, new clean engines operating on 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, and reduce PM emissions by more than 90%. Due to the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur program, by 2006 average national gasoline sulfur levels will be 90% lower.

Upon implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) SO2 emissions from power plants will be reduced nationwide by 3.6 million tons in 2010 ( approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented ( approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons nationwide in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 ( about 65 percent below today s levels).

The first phase of compliance under the CAIR rule to reduce both SO2 and NOx emissions would be required by 2010, allowing substantial emission reductions in the area, by the proposed attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Monitoring Data and Trends The MSA has three monitors located within its boundaries, two in Fayette County and one in Madison County. PM2.5 monitoring levels have continued to decline at all three monitors within this region. ( See Figure 5 below)

Fayette County has two PM2.5 monitors, one located in a central urban area in the midst of the downtown, University of Kentucky campus ( Limestone), and the other located on an arterial roadway 1.9 miles north of downtown ( Newtown Pike).

The Newtown Pike monitor shows attainment with the standard, having an average of 14.9 µ g/ m 3 over the time period 2001 2003, and having an average of 13.6 µ g/ m 3 through April 2004.

The latest average through April 2004 for the Limestone monitor is 14.7 µ g/ m 3.

The current design value of 15.6 µ g/ m 3 is based on the 2001 2003 time period.

Even though Mercer County does not have a monitor, the PM2.5 levels have decreased by 15% at the Newtown Pike monitor, 12% at the Limestone monitor, and 13% at the Madison County monitor ( See Figure 6 below). 5 Figure 5 Fayette Area PM2.5 Trend Utilizing Most Current Available Data 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year A n n u a l A r i th m e t i c M e a n ( m ic r o g r a m s / c u b i c m e t e r )

Newtown Limestone Madison Figure 6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Newtown Limestone Madison Decline in PM Values for the Fayette Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2003 shows decrease of 15% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 12% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 13% 6 Localized vs Regional Impacts It is Kentucky s position that the monitor located on the UK Campus exhibits an   Urban Core Phenomenon.  That is, the monitor s location is at the center of a large public university situated in a downtown metropolitan area with significant activity having a direct relationship to the PM2.5 levels being monitored.

This monitor is bracketed by numerous large and small boilers on the University of Kentucky campus and is located adjacent to continuing construction on the campus. Significant local impacts are occurring due to not only the close proximity of the boilers, but also from the emission contributions of construction equipment in the area. This monitor is located only 1.9 miles from the monitor showing attainment of the standard on Newtown Pike.

If significant regional impacts from emissions from Mercer County were occurring, they would be expected throughout the regional monitoring network and not at one specific monitor in downtown Lexington.

Meteorology EPA s response to Kentucky stated that the wind speed/ wind direction data provided by Kentucky in the February submittal did not play a significant role in the decision making process and that the information was for summertime winds. Kentucky offers the following information.

As shown in the updated wind rose in Figure 7 below, the majority of the time the wind in the Lexington area comes from the south and the southwest. This would indicate that both monitors, not just one would be having an impact and therefore causing violations of the standard at both monitoring sites. This data clearly shows, that an isolated urban core impact is being seen at the downtown Lexington monitoring site. 7 Figure 7 Scott Fayette Woodford Mercer Bourbon Clark Madison Jessamine 8 Conclusions Based on the factors discussed above, Kentucky believes that Mercer County should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

  The only monitor showing a violation throughout the entire eight county region is being impacted by a localized urban core phenomenon. Wind Rose data provided in Figure 7 show that both monitors should be violating the standard if a localized impact were not being documented.

  PM2.5 levels continue to decline throughout the entire region. From a review of all monitors in the region, an average decline of 13% in PM2.5 levels has occurred from 2000 through 2003. Every monitor in the region is currently showing values well within attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard using 2002 through 2004 data.

  Additional emission reductions on a national and regional level will provide substantial additional emission reductions in the region. The anticipated sulfur reductions due to the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule; the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Low Sulfur programs, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) will further lower pollutant levels within this region.

To have this county designated nonattainment would invoke additional substantial and unnecessary requirements on local government planning agencies. Drastic emission reductions are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area. In addition, reductions anticipated by the CAIR provisions; the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 Standard at two of the three monitors in the area; the downward trend in monitored values, and Kentucky s position that the monitored violation of the standard in the downtown area is the result of a localized   urban core phenomenon  lead to the conclusion that Mercer County, Kentucky, should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 Standard.


19810 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 2003 / Notices m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene   Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents   Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title `` COMMENTS'', `` RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', `` PROTEST'', OR `` MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant( s) specified in the particular application. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the `` e Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicants. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicants' representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   9900 Filed 4   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OW   2002   0063; FRL   7486   3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 0168.08 ( OMB No. 2040   0057) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 22, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Faulk, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202   564   0768; fax number: ( 202) 564   6431; e mail address: faulk. jack@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 10, 2003, ( 68 FR 1454), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW   2002   0063, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566   2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to OW   Docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NPDES and Sewage Sludge Management State Programs ( OMB Control Number 2040   0057, EPA ICR Number 0168.08). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: Under the NPDES program, States, Federally Recognized Indian Tribes, and U. S. Territories, hereafter referred to as States, may acquire the authority to issue permits. These governments have the option of acquiring authority to issue general VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 13 Apr 21, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22APN1. SGM 22APN1 19811 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 2003 / Notices permits ( permits that cover a category or categories of similar discharges). States with existing NPDES programs must submit requests for program modifications to add Federal facilities, or general permit authority. In addition, as federal statutes and regulations are modified, States must submit program modifications to ensure that their program continues to meet Federal requirements. States have the option of obtaining a sludge management program. This program may be a component of a State NPDES Program, or it may be administered as a separate program. To obtain a NPDES or sludge program, a State must submit an application that includes a program description, an Attorney General's Statement, draft Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) with the EPA Region, and copies of the State's statutes and regulations. Once a State obtains authority for an NPDES or sludge program, it becomes responsible for implementing the program in that jurisdiction. The State must retain records on the permittees and perform inspections. In addition, when a State obtains NPDES or sludge authority, EPA must oversee the program. Thus, States must submit permit information and compliance reports to the EPA. When EPA issues a permit in an unauthorized State, that State must certify that the permit requirements comply with State water laws. According to the Clean Water Act ( CWA) ( section 510), States may adopt discharge requirements that are equal to or more stringent than requirements in the CWA or Federal regulations. There are three categories of reporting requirements that are covered by this ICR. The first category, `` State Program Requests,'' includes the activities States must complete to request a new NPDES or sludge program, or to modify an existing program. The second category, `` State Program Implementation,'' includes the activities that approved States must complete to implement an existing program, such as certification of EPA issued permits by non NPDES States. The third category, `` State Program Oversight,'' includes activities required of NPDES States so that EPA may satisfy its statutory requirements for state program oversight. The information collected by EPA is used to evaluate the adequacy of a State's NPDES or sludge program and to provide EPA with the information necessary to fulfill its statutory oversight functions over State program performance and individual permit actions. EPA will use this information to evaluate State requests for full or partial program approval and program modifications. In order to evaluate the adequacy of a State's proposed program, appropriate information must be provided to ensure that proper procedures, regulations, and statutes are in place and consistent with the CWA requirements. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 50.3 hours per response for each state activity. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: States, Territories, and American Indian Tribal Entities. Estimated Number of Respondents: 613. Frequency of Response: Semiannually quarterly, on occasion, every 5 years, on going. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 966,966 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 30,169,349, includes $ 0 annualized capital or O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 173,828 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease in the applicant respondent and NPDES authorized state burden is due primarily to a significant cleanup of the database used to track NPDES permittees. Dated: April 10, 2003. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   9912 Filed 4   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ AMS   FRL   7485   4]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption   Notice of Decision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to section 209( b) of the Clean Air Act ( Act), 42 U. S. C. 7543( b), is granting California its request for a waiver of federal preemption for its Low Emission Vehicle amendments ( LEV II Amendments) to its Low Emission Vehicle ( LEV) program. By letter dated May 30, 2001, the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) requested that EPA grant California a waiver of federal preemption for its LEV II Amendments and its 1999 zero emission vehicle amendments ( 1999 ZEV Amendments), which primarily: Impose more stringent passenger car exhaust emission standards on most sport utility vehicles, pick up trucks, and mini vans; create lower tailpipe standards for all light and medium duty vehicles; establish more stringent requirements for phasing in cleaner vehicles; establish more stringent evaporative emission standards; and include new mechanisms for the generation of ZEV credits. CARB submitted subsequent letters to EPA which initially requested EPA to confirm CARB's determination that its 1999 and 2001 ZEV amendments are within the scope of waivers EPA had previously granted; ultimately CARB withdrew its requests regarding the 1999 and 2001 ZEV amendments. Today's decision does not address CARB's 1999 or 2001 ZEV amendments. ADDRESSES: The Agency's Decision Document, containing an explanation of the Assistant Administrator's decision, as well as all documents relied upon in making that decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are available at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( Air Docket). Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No. A   2002   11. The docket is located at The Air Docket, room B   108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 13 Apr 21, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22APN1. SGM 22APN1


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/16/2008 09:08 AM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

For the RIA discussion at 9:30, the Excel sheet is my effort to

communicate more clearly what I think I understand was done and would

like to see explained in the chapters.  The chapters sometimes read

differently and so I'm not sure whether I misunderstand or they just

aren't all "sewn together" yet.

The Chap 4 doc should have edits from OMB on the filtering issue, which

was one of the items on the list I emailed last Friday.

Thank you folks,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From: King, Heidi R.

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:09 PM

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Kathy et al,

I'll ask Margaret to set up time for us to walk through the RIA issues

together.

I am increasingly concerned that we have not made sufficient progress

implementing our points of agreement in the RIA for OMB to conclude

review on this document in the next few days.

My hope is that conversation will help us clarify any points of

misunderstanding.  I am in the office full day tomorrow, Friday, and

would be pleased to have the conversation with you,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From: King, Heidi R.

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:43 PM

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Hi Kathy,

I'm still a bit worried about characterizing the RIA as analysis of

"nationally attaining" since we are only analyzing 36 counties. Perhaps

we could hop on the phone for a few minutes?

Thanks !!

Heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:23 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Heidi -- attached are all the current chapters of the Pb RIA.  We

believe we have incorporated all of your comments, with the exception of

cascading new alternative C-R functions and new alternative blood Pb

ratios throughout the analysis.

You'll note in particular that we have incorporated the alternative

standard of 0.50 ug/m3 throughout.  Also please note changes to the

front pages of chapter 4, 5, 6, 7, and the Executive Summary to add

caveats.

Thanks.

-- Kathy

(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 5 Draft 5-15-08.doc)(See attached

file: Pb RIA Chapter 1 draft 5-15-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA

Chapter 2 Draft 5-15-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 3 Draft

5-15-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 4 Draft 5-15-08.doc)

(See attached file: Pb RIA Exec Summ Draft 5-15-08.doc)(See attached

file: Pb RIA Chapter 6 Draft 5-15-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA

Chapter 7 Draft 5-15-08.doc)(See attached file: Pb RIA Chapter 8 Draft

5-15-08.doc)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>