1 The term EPCRA section 313 properly refers to only the statutory requirements, while the term TRI properly refers to the database where the information collected under section 313 and under section 6607 of the PPA is stored. However, the terms have often been used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the regulatory requirements, the reporting form, the database, and EPA's program to manage the data. In deference to common usage, the terms EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in this report where doing so will make the report simpler and easier to read.

1 1 CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals in the United States. Under section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and to States on their release( s), transfer( s), and waste management activities for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other waste management information for these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI). 1 Since the inception of the TRI Program, EPA has implemented measures that reduce the reporting burden to the regulated universe of facilities. These measures have included compliance assistance activities such as industry specific guidance documents and annual TRI training workshops. Efforts to reduce the time spent completing the form include the Toxics Release Inventory B Made Easy ( TRI ME) software and the Form A certification. In an effort to further expand burden reduction opportunities, EPA is currently considering eliminating some of Form R/ A's unnecessary and redundant data elements and streamlining others.

This report analyzes the economic effects of making certain modifications to the Form R and Form A reporting forms to reduce reporting burden. To understand the effects of the proposed rule, however, it is first necessary to understand how EPCRA section 313 and TRI currently operate. This chapter provides an overview of TRI followed by a description of the proposed rule and organization of the report.

1.1 OVERVIEW OF TRI In 1986 Congress passed EPCRA, which is also known as Title III of SARA. The law was passed in response to the accidental release of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India, in December 1984, and a number of chemical accidents in the U. S., including one in Institute, West Virginia. These accidental releases highlighted the dearth of information available to the public about toxic chemicals being manufactured, processed, used and transported within their communities. EPCRA is based on the premise that the public has the right to know about chemical uses, as well as routine and accidental releases. The broad purposes are to encourage 1 2 planning for response to accidental chemical releases as well as daily management of routine releases, and to provide the public and government agencies with information about the presence, release, and management of toxic chemicals.

EPCRA contains four main provisions:

Planning for chemical emergencies ( sections 301 303),

Emergency notification of chemical accidents and releases ( section 304),

Reporting of hazardous chemical inventories ( sections 311 312), and

Toxic chemical release reporting ( section 313).

Because the rule is being promulgated under section 313 ( and not the other sections of EPCRA), the remainder of this overview deals only with section 313 ( i. e., TRI).

The regulations implementing EPCRA section 313 were promulgated on February 16, 1988 ( 53 FR 4500), and are codified at 40 CFR Part 372. Under these regulations, owners or operators of covered facilities must complete the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R, which includes information on releases to air, water and land, as well as on site waste treatment and transfers of the chemical in or as waste to off site locations. These reports must be submitted to EPA and the States for each calendar year, by July 1 of the following year.

A completed Form R must be submitted for each toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at each covered facility as described in 40 CFR Part 372. There are currently over 600 toxic chemicals and chemical compound categories on the list of TRI chemicals.

A facility must report under section 313 if it meets all three of the following criteria:

( 1) It is in a Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code covered by the regulations;

( 2) It has 10 or more full time employees ( or the hourly equivalent of 20,000 hours); and ( 3) It manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the applicable reporting threshold.

TRI is unique among environmental databases because of the multimedia data it collects, and because it was designed for public access. EPCRA requires that EPA " establish and maintain in a computer database a national toxic chemical inventory based on data submitted to the Administrator." The Administrator shall make the data available by computer, telecommunication, and other means to any person on a cost reimbursable basis. EPA maintains the section 313 data in the national Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) database. TRI data are available to the public in a variety of paper and electronic formats, including disk, on line, and CD ROM. With its broad dissemination, TRI data has enjoyed extensive use by the public. Facilities have used the data obtained through TRI to better understand their operations, and make better use of pollution prevention opportunities. Public interest groups have used the data 1 3 to educate themselves on the presence of toxic chemicals in the environment, and have used that increased information to engage in meaningful, productive dialogue with industry and with all levels of government. In general, TRI data has proven to be a powerful tool in environmental decision making.

Section 313( h) of EPCRA states that data obtained pursuant to section 313 are intended to provide information to the public as well as to Federal, State, and local governments. " These data shall be used to inform the public about releases to the environment of the listed chemicals; to assist government agencies, researchers, and other persons conducting research and gathering data; to aid in the development of appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards; and for other similar purposes."

1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act In 1990 Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA), adopting as national policy an environmental hierarchy establishing pollution prevention as the first choice among waste management options. For waste that cannot be prevented at the source, recycling is considered the next best option. Treatment or disposal should be turned to only after source reduction and recycling have been considered. Section 6607 of the PPA augmented the information available to the public under EPCRA section 313 by requiring facilities to report information on their pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management activities on Form R. The data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act are contained in section 8 of the Form R.

1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals When Congress passed EPCRA it gave EPA an initial list of approximately 300 chemicals and chemical categories subject to TRI reporting. The statutory list was derived from chemical lists used in New Jersey and Maryland. Congress also included a provision in EPCRA to amend the list of chemicals. Under section 313( d), EPA has the authority to add a chemical to the list if it determines that the chemical can cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause:

Adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous or frequently recurring releases;

Cancer or teratogenic effects, serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

A significant adverse effect on the environment.

EPA has also added chemicals to the list through its authority under section 313( d). Most notably, EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI on November 30, 1994 ( 59 FR 61432). The majority of these chemicals are pesticides. Many of the remainder are chemicals regulated or identified as concerns under other environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

EPA may delete a chemical from the list if it does not meet any of the above criteria. 2 The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total quantities recycled, combusted for energy recovery, treated or released. It can be calculated as the sum of data elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R.

1 4 According to section 313( e) of EPCRA, any person may petition EPA to add or delete a chemical from the list on the basis of whether or not it meets the above criteria. All changes to the list are made through notice and comment rulemaking.

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold On November 30, 1994, EPA finalized the " TRI Alternate Threshold for Facilities with Low Annual Reportable Amounts" ( 59 FR 61488). This rule was intended to reduce the compliance burden associated with EPCRA section 313. It established a streamlined reporting option for facilities where the annual reportable amount of a listed chemical released or managed does not exceed 500 pounds. 2 Such facilities have the option of applying an alternate manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds to that chemical, instead of the standard thresholds of 10,000 or 25,000 pounds. If a facility does not exceed the 1 millionpound threshold, then that facility is eligible to submit Form A for that chemical instead of Form R.

Form A is a simplified reporting form that includes facility identification information and the identity of the chemical or chemical category being reported. The Form must be submitted on an annual basis, and the information appears in the TRI data base in the same manner as information submitted on a Form R.

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856 On August 3, 1993, Executive Order 12856, " Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements" was signed by the President ( 58 FR 41981). The Executive Order requires federal facilities to comply with EPCRA requirements beginning with the 1994 reporting year. The Executive Order also asks all federal agencies to set a voluntary goal of 50% reduction from baseline quantities of their releases and transfers by 1999.

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries On May 1, 1997, EPA added facilities in seven industry groups to the list of facilities subject to the reporting requirements of section 313 ( 62 FR 23833). Prior to this action, reporting was limited to facilities in the manufacturing sector ( SIC codes 20 39) and federal facilities. This action added facilities in the following sectors:

metal mining,

coal mining,

electric utilities,

commercial hazardous waste treatment,

chemicals and allied products wholesale,

petroleum bulk terminals and plants wholesale, and 1 5

solvent recovery services.

The first reports from these facilities were submitted in 1999 for reporting year 1998.

1.1.6 Changes for Certain PBT Chemicals On October 29, 1999, EPA lowered reporting thresholds to 10 or 100 pounds for certain TRI chemicals that are of concern because of their tendency to persist and bioaccumulate ( 64 FR 58666). EPA added to TRI certain PBT chemicals that were not already listed. The Agency also made other concurrent changes in the program for PBT chemical reporting, such as eliminating the de minimis exemption, range reporting, and Form A reporting. On January 17, 2001, EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds to 100 pounds.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RULE As described above, EPA has implemented a number of burden reduction measures. To build upon these efforts, EPA conducted a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between Fall 2002 and early 2004. During this dialogue, improvements to the TRI reporting process were identified and a number of burden reduction options associated with TRI reporting were explored. After reviewing these improvements and reporting options, EPA decided to initiate two burden reduction rulemakings: 1) several relatively simple, quick fix solutions for reducing the time, cost, and complexity of reporting requirements and 2) a broader and more complex set of regulatory burden reduction alternatives. This economic analysis reflects the costs and impacts of the first burden reduction rulemaking. The following sections outline the specific changes that are proposed.

1.2.1 Removal of Longitude/ Latitude Reporting Requirement ( Part I, section 4.6)

Under the proposed rule the longitude and latitude coordinates indicating the geographic location of each TRI reporting facility ( Part I, section 4.6) will be removed from Form R and Form A. Facility locational data will still be made available in the TRI database. Rather than requiring facilities to determine their geographic coordinates, EPA will extract the data from information that is already collected, stored and maintained in its centrally managed database called the Facility Registry System ( FRS). The FRS has been designated as the Agency's definitive source of facility data and serves as a single integrated source of comprehensive environmental information about facilities, sites and ecosystems. It provides high quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate information from EPA national data systems, state master facility records, data collected from EPA's Central Data Exchange registrations and data management personnel.

1.2.2 Removal of Reporting Requirements for EPA Program Identity Numbers ( Part I, Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10)

EPA proposes to remove three similar reporting requirements from Form R and Form A 1 6 that identify facilities through EPA program identification numbers ( see Form R, Part I, sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10). The identification numbers include the number assigned to facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), the permit identification numbers under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES), and all permit numbers issued by EPA or a state to facilities with underground injection wells. FRS integrates into a single record all program identification and permit information numbers, including those for the RCRA, NPDES and Underground Injection programs. Therefore, these identification numbers will still be available in FRS.

1.2.3 Removal of Reporting Requirement for Determining the Percentage of the Total Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Contributed by Stormwater ( Part II, Section 5.3 Column C)

Under the proposed rule, section 5.3 column C would be removed from Part II of Form R. This data element applies to discharges to receiving streams and water bodies. It requires facilities with monitoring data on the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals that are released to stormwater runoff to indicate the percentage of the total quantity of the listed chemicals that are contributed by stormwater.

1.2.4 Modifications to the Reporting Requirement for On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency ( Part II, Section 7)

EPA proposes several modifications to Part II, section 7 of the Form R. Under Part II, section 7, facilities report qualitative information regarding their on site waste treatment, energy recovery and recycling of listed chemicals. The proposed modifications either 1) eliminate data elements that EPA believes are not widely used by States and the public or 2) reduce the number of codes a facility must consider when reporting in specific sections. The following specific modifications are under consideration:

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Columns a, c and e EPA proposes eliminating columns a, c, and e of Section 7A as this information does not appear to be widely used by States and the public. In column a, facilities report a code corresponding to the general waste stream type for each waste stream treated by the facility. Completion of column c requires facilities to enter a numerical code indicating the concentration range of the EPCRA section 313 chemical as it enters the treatment step. Column e requires facilities to indicate " Yes" or " No" as to whether the waste treatment efficiency reported in column d is based on actual operating data such as the case where a facility monitors the influent and effluent wastes from this treatment step.

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column b EPA proposes simplifying column b of section 7A by reducing the number of reporting codes. There are currently 64 codes describing the various waste treatment methods applied to listed chemicals treated on site that can be reported in column b. Under the proposed rule, the 64 1 7 codes will be replaced with five of the waste management codes ( i. e., M codes) used in Part II, section 6.2 of Form R where facilities report quantities of toxic chemicals transferred to off site locations.

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column d Under the proposed rule, facilities will report treatment efficiency in column d as a range. The waste treatment efficiency represents the percentage of the TRI chemical destroyed or removed ( based on amount or mass). Currently, facilities must enter an exact percentage in this column of the form. No specific ranges are proposed at this time. Rather, EPA is soliciting comments on possible range codes along with the rationale for these ranges.

Section 7B On site Energy Recovery Processes EPA proposes to eliminate the three codes facilities use to report the on site energy recovery device they use to combust a toxic chemical. Instead, EPA will require facilities to simply indicate whether or not they perform energy recovery on site.

Section 7C On Site Recycling Processes Under the proposed rule, the current recycling codes ( 16 in total) in section 7C will be eliminated. They will be replaced with all but one of the recycling codes used in Part II, section 6.2 of the Form R.

1.2.5 Removal of Reporting Data Field for Optional Submission of Additional Information ( Part II, Section 8.11)

EPA proposes to remove question 8.11 from Part II of the Form R. Additional information describing the source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities that a facility has implemented in the current or prior reporting years for the listed chemical will still be collected from facilities wishing to submit it. EPA will provide instructions on how to submit this information electronically in the " Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions" and the " TRI ME" reporting software.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report examines the potential burden and cost savings to industry that would result from removing or modifying the13 TRI data elements described above. This report also estimates the other impacts of the rule. The remainder of the report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 presents the methodology used to estimate the data element specific burden, unit costs, and impacts of the proposed rule. Chapter 3 presents the total burden and cost savings associated with the proposed rule. Chapter 4 examines the impacts of the final rule. Chapter 5 evaluates the " benefits" of the proposed rule.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21232-21234]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30776; Amdt. No. 3420]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective April 15, 2011. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and

textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a
Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some
SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them
effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication
is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2011.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

* * * Effective 5 MAY 2011

Deadhorse, AK, Deadhorse, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 5, Orig
Deadhorse, AK, Deadhorse, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23, Orig
Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 2
Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 2
Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 7
Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 1
Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 3
Gulf Shores, AL, Jack Edwards, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), ILS OR LOC RWY 28,
Amdt 10
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), NDB RWY 10, Amdt
19
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), RADAR-1, Amdt 9
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), RNAV (GPS) RWY 3,
Amdt 1
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), RNAV (GPS) RWY 10,
Amdt 1
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), RNAV (GPS) RWY 28,
Amdt 1
Montgomery, AL, Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field), VOR-A, Amdt 4
Almyra, AR, Almyra Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 6, CANCELLED
Corning, AR, Corning Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Jonesboro, AR, Jonesboro Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Pine Bluff, AR, Grider Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Pine Bluff, AR, Grider Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Pine Bluff, AR, Grider Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, LOC/DME RWY 28L, Amdt 2
Hayward, CA, Hayward Executive, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 2
Napa, CA, Napa County, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 13
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, ILS
RWY 10 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 10 (CAT II), ILS RWY 10 (CAT III), Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28, ILS
RWY 28 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 28 (CAT II), Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS PRM RWY 10, ILS
RWY 10 (CAT II), ILS RWY 10 (CAT III), (Simultaneous Close
Parallel), Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, ILS PRM RWY 28, ILS
RWY 28 (CAT II),
(Simultaneous Close Parallel), Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10,
Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28,
Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10,
Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28,
Amdt 1
Lawrenceville, GA, Gwinnett County-Briscoe Field, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 1
Lawrenceville, GA, Gwinnett County-Briscoe Field, VOR/DME RWY 7,
Amdt 2
Macon, GA, Macon Downtown, LOC RWY 10, Amdt 7
Macon, GA, Macon Downtown, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Macon, GA, Macon Downtown, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central Il Rgnl Arpt at Bloomington-Normal,
ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 10
Bloomington/Normal, IL, Central Il Rgnl Arpt at Bloomington-Normal,
LOC BC RWY 11, Amdt 10
Larned, KS, Larned-Pawnee County, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 4
Larned, KS, Larned-Pawnee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Larned, KS, Larned-Pawnee County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Marysville, KS, Marysville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Patterson, LA, Harry P Williams Memorial, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24,
Amdt 2
Patterson, LA, Harry P Williams Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Vineyard Haven, MA, Marthas Vineyard, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Sanford, ME, Sanford Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 4
Sanford, ME, Sanford Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Sanford, ME, Sanford Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Sanford, ME, Sanford Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Sanford, ME, Sanford Rgnl, VOR RWY 7, Amdt 4
Sanford, ME, Sanford Rgnl, VOR RWY 25, Amdt 14
Battle Creek, MI, W K Kellogg, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 3
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 4, Amdt 7A CANCELLED
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 22, Amdt 3A
CANCELLED
Buffalo, MN, Buffalo Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Buffalo, MN, Buffalo Muni, VOR-A, Orig
Buffalo, MN, Buffalo Muni, VOR OR GPS-B, Amdt 4, CANCELLED
Hallock, MN, Hallock Muni, GPS RWY 31, Orig, CANCELLED

Hallock, MN, Hallock Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Hallock, MN, Hallock Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Little Falls, MN, Little Falls/Morrison County-Lindbergh Fld, GPS
RWY 31, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Little Falls, MN, Little Falls/Morrison County-Lindbergh Fld, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Marshall, MN, Southwest Minnesota Rgnl/Marshall/Ryan Fld, GPS RWY
30, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Marshall, MN, Southwest Minnesota Rgnl/Marshall/Ryan Fld, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 30, Orig
St Paul, MN, Lake Elmo, NDB RWY 4, Amdt 5
St Paul, MN, Lake Elmo, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Moberly, MO, Omar N Bradley, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 13, Amdt 1,
CANCELLED
Moberly, MO, Omar N Bradley, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 31, Amdt 1,
CANCELLED
Clarksdale, MS, Fletcher Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Clarksdale, MS, Fletcher Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Tunica, MS, Tunica Muni, ILS or LOC/DME RWY 35, Amdt 1
Tunica, MS, Tunica Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 3
Tunica, MS, Tunica Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2
Tunica, MS, Tunica Muni, VOR/DME-A, Orig
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 13, Amdt 3
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 33
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 2
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Bismarck, ND, Bismarck Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 21
Walhalla, ND, Walhalla Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Creighton, NE, Creighton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Creighton, NE, Creighton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Creighton, NE, Creighton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Lincoln, NE, Lincoln, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 7
Lincoln, NE, Lincoln, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 13
Nashua, NH, Boire Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A
Poughkeepsie, NY, Dutchess County, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 6A
Poughkeepsie, NY, Dutchess County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig-A
Poughkeepsie, NY, Dutchess County, VOR/DME RWY 6, Amdt 6A
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 7
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 2
Watertown, NY, Watertown Intl, VOR RWY 7, Amdt 14
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 23A
Cadiz, OH, Harrison County, GPS RWY 13, Orig, CANCELLED
Cadiz, OH, Harrison County, GPS RWY 31, Orig, CANCELLED
Cadiz, OH, Harrison County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Cadiz, OH, Harrison County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig
Cadiz, OH, Harrison County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 24R, Amdt
1
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 6R, ILS RWY 6R
(SA CAT II), Amdt 21
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, ILS RWY
24L (SA CAT II), Amdt 22
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 24R, ILS
RWY 24R (CAT II), ILS RWY 24R (CAT III), ILS RWY 24R (SA CAT I),
Amdt 5
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, ILS PRM RWY 24R (Simultaneous
Close Parallel), Amdt 1
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24L, Amdt 3
Cleveland, OH, Cleveland-Hopkins Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24R, Amdt 3
Oklahoma City, OK, Wiley Post, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, Orig
Scappoose, OR, Scappoose Industrial Airpark, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig
Scappoose, OR, Scappoose Industrial Airpark, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 3
St. George, SC, St George, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2, CANCELLED
Dyersburg, TN, Dyersburg Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Gallatin, TN, Summer County Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 3
Charlottesville, VA, Charlottesville-Albemarle, ILS OR LOC RWY 3,
Amdt 14, CANCELLED
Charlottesville, VA, Charlottesville-Albemarle, ILS OR LOC RWY 3,
Orig
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig, CANCELLED
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 33, Orig
Burlington, VT, Burlington Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 33, Orig
Amery, WI, Amery Muni, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 6A, CANCELLED
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Traux Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 2
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Traux Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Traux Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 8
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Traux Field, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 1
Madison, WI, Dane County Rgnl-Traux Field, VOR RWY 32, Amdt 1
Middleton, WI, Middleton Muni-Morey Field, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 1
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 13
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 2
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Mosinee, WI, Central Wisconsin, VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 9
Waupaca, WI, Waupaca Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Waupaca, WI, Waupaca Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1

    On March 4, 2011 (76 FR 11944) the FAA published an Amendment in
Docket No. 30770, Amdt 3414 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations under section 97.33. The following entries, published in
TL 11-07 effective for 05 MAY 2011, are hereby rescinded:

Hartford, CT, Hartford-Brainard, LDA RWY 2, Amdt 1G
Hartford, CT, Hartford-Brainard, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 9C

    On March 25, 2011 (76 FR 16690) the FAA published an Amendment
in Docket No. 30772, Amdt 3416 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations under section 97.33. The following entry, published in
TL 11-08 effective for 05 MAY 2011, is hereby rescinded:

Kamuela, HI, Waimea-Kohala, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1

    On March 25, 2011 (76 FR 16691) the FAA published an Amendment
in Docket No. 30772, Amdt 3416 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations under section 97.33. The following entries, published in
TL 11-08 effective for 05 MAY 2011, are hereby rescinded:

Kamuela, HI, Waimea-Kohala, VOR/DME RWY 4, Amdt 1
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 3, Amdt 7A,
CANCELLED
Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 21, Amdt
3A,CANCELLED

[FR Doc. 2011-8934 Filed 4-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-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 EPA/ OECA/ CAMPD/ CMWPB 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0394 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G 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 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 For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. x Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing 40 CFR part 61, subpart D 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): EPA ICR Control Number  1125.03 9. Keywords: Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control 10. Abstract: Beryllium rocket motor fuel firing operations result in emissions of beryllium. In the Administrator's judgment, emissions from these sources are in sufficient quantity to cause or contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. In order to ensure compliance with the standards, adequate record keeping and reporting is necessary. This information enables the Agency to: ( 1) identify the sources subject to the standard; ( 2) ensure initial compliance with emission limits; and ( 3) verify continuous compliance with the standard. The rule requires subject test sites to test ambient air for beryllium during and after firing of a rocket motor. Sampling techniques are approved by the Administrator. Samples are analyzed within 30 days and results are reported to the EPA Region by registered letter by the business day following the determination ( see 40 CFR 61.43). In addition, stack sampling required at 40 CFR 61.41, requires continuous sampling of beryllium combustion products, analysis and reporting within 30 days. The results are reported to EPA by the day following the determination and calculation.

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 Government 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 1 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 8 d. Current OMB inventory 8 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 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. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. x Record keeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. x On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

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

Q Yes x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Elson Lim Phone: ( 202) 564 7006 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 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 the 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 management 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 Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register: December 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 78421]
[DOCID:fr29de06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-25-000]

Louisiana Public Service Commission; Complainant v. Entergy
Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy
Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc.,
Entergy Gulf States Respondents; Notice of Complaint

December 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 18, 2006, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules and Practice and Procedure and Sections 205 and 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e, Louisiana Public Service
Commission (complainant) filed a formal complaint against Entergy
Arkansas, Inc. (respondent) seeking remedy for the attempted withdrawal
of the respondent from the Entergy System Agreement and a determination
that rough production cost equalization shall not be disrupted by any
departure of the respondent and that the respondent shall continue to
bear the cost responsibility already assigned to it by the Commission's
Orders, including the cost associated with a final remedy for cost
discrimination found in the Commission's Opinion Nos. 480 and 480-A.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 e-mail
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 8, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22356 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58356-58359]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23006]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70425; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.91
To Specify That LMMs Receive Execution Allocations of Incoming
Electronic Complex Orders and Complex Order Auction Eligible Orders in
Accordance With the Guaranteed Participation Provision of Rule
6.76A(a)(1)(A), Without Any Exceptions

September 17, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 12, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.91 to specify that LMMs
receive execution allocations of incoming Electronic Complex Orders and
Complex Order Auction (``COA'') eligible orders in accordance with the
guaranteed participation provision of Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A), without any
exceptions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.91(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii),
(c)(6)(A), and (c)(6)(D) to specify that LMMs receive execution
allocations of the individual components of a legged out incoming
Electronic Complex Order or COA-eligible order in accordance with the
guaranteed participation provision of Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A), without any
exceptions, which is how the Exchange currently operates.

    Rule 6.91 governs trading of ``Electronic Complex Orders,'' as that
term is defined in NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.62(e).\4\ Rule
6.91(a)(2)(i) currently provides that Electronic Complex Orders
accepted in the Exchange's Complex Matching Engine (``CME'') \5\ are
executed automatically against other Electronic Complex Orders in the
Consolidated Book,\6\ unless individual orders or quotes in the
Consolidated Book can execute against incoming Electronic Complex
Orders, subject to specified conditions, in which case such individual
orders and quotes have priority. Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii) currently provides
that Electronic Complex Orders in the CME that are not marketable
against other Electronic Complex Orders automatically execute against
individual quotes or orders in the Consolidated Book, provided that the
Electronic Complex Orders can be executed in full or in a permissible
ratio by the individual quotes or orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.62(e) defines an Electronic Complex
Order as ``any order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale
of two or more different option series in the same underlying
security, for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or
greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-
one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy.''
    \5\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.91(a) defines the CME as ``the
mechanism in which Electronic Complex Orders are executed against
each other or against individual quotes and orders in the
Consolidated Book.''
    \6\ NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.1(b)(37) defines the Consolidated
Book as ``the Exchange's electronic book of limit orders for the
accounts of Public Customers and broker-dealers, and Quotes with
Size. All orders and Quotes with Size that are entered into the Book
will be ranked and maintained in accordance with the rules of
priority as provided in Rule 6.76. There is no limit to the size of
orders or quotes that may be entered into the Consolidated Book.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.91(c) governs the electronic COA process, and specifically,
Rule 6.91(c)(6) governs the execution of COA-eligible orders.\7\ Upon
receiving a COA-eligible order and a request by the OTP Holder
representing the order that an auction be initiated, the Exchange sends
an automated request for responses (``RFR'') message to OTP Holders
with an interface connection to the Exchange that have elected to
receive such RFR messages. Market Makers with an appointment in the
relevant options class, and OTP Holders acting as agent for orders
resting at the top of the Consolidated Book in the relevant options
series, may electronically submit responses (``RFR Responses''), and
modify, but not withdraw, the RFR response at anytime during the
request response time interval (the ``Response Time Interval''). When
the Response Time Interval expires, the COA-eligible order is executed
and allocated to the extent it is marketable, or routed to the
Consolidated Book to the extent it is not marketable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 6.91(c)(1) defines a COA-eligible order as ``an
Electronic Complex Order that, as determined by the Exchange on a
class-by-class basis, is eligible for a COA considering the order's
marketability (defined as a number of ticks away from the current
market), size, number of series, and complex order origin types
(i.e., Customers, broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-Makers or
specialists on an options exchange).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.91(c)(6) provides that COA-eligible orders are executed
against the best priced contra-side interest, and provides an
allocation process for orders at the same net price. Rule 6.91(c)(6)(A)
currently provides that individual orders and quotes in the leg markets
resting in the Consolidated Book prior to the initiation of a COA will
have first priority to trade against a COA-eligible order, provided
that the COA-eligible order can be executed in full (or in a
permissible ratio) by the orders and quotes in the Consolidated Book.
Rule 6.91(c)(6)(D) currently provides that individual orders and quotes
in the leg markets that cause the derived Complex Best Bid/Offer to be
improved during the COA and match the best RFR Response and/or
Electronic Complex Orders received during the Response Time Interval
will be filled after Electronic Complex Orders and RFR Responses at the
same net price. Allocations to individual orders or quotes in the leg
markets that cause the derived BBO to be improved occur on a Customer/
order/size pro rata basis.
    Under Rules 6.91(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii), incoming orders or
quotes, or those residing in the Consolidated Book, that execute
against Electronic Complex Orders are allocated pursuant to Rule 6.76A.
Additionally, under Rules 6.91(c)(6)(A) and (c)(6)(D), individual
orders or quotes residing in the Consolidated Book that execute against
a COA-eligible order are allocated pursuant to Rule 6.76A. Rule
6.76A(a)(1)(A) grants LMMs guaranteed participation, which means that
if an LMM is quoting at a price equal to the National Best Bid or Offer
(``NBBO'') in an option series that the LMM is assigned, incoming bids
and offers in that series will, depending on order ranking provisions
of Rule 6.76A, be matched against the LMM's quote, up to specified
thresholds.\8\ Currently, Rules 6.91(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(6)(A),
and (c)(6)(D) provide that the LMM guaranteed participation afforded in
Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A) will not apply to executions against an Electronic
Complex Order or a COA-eligible order. However, Exchange systems do
apply the LMM guaranteed participation afforded in Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A)
to Electronic Complex Orders and COA-eligible orders that execute
against individual quotes and orders in the Consolidated Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 6.76(a)(1)(A) also provides for guaranteed
participation for Directed Order Market Makers; however, there are
not currently any Directed Order Market Markers on NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.91(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii),
(c)(6)(A), and (c)(6)(D) to specify that LMMs receive execution
allocations of incoming Electronic Complex Orders and COA-eligible
orders in accordance with the guaranteed participation provision of
Rule 6.76A(a)(1)(A), without any exceptions.\9\ The proposed change
would codify existing processing of Electronic Complex Orders that leg
out to the individual markets and how they may interact with the LMM in
the individual markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange will announce, via Trader Update, the
allocation process when an Electronic Complex Order legs out to the
individual markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that under the proposed amendment to Rule 6.91
the execution of an Electronic Complex Order against another Electronic
Complex Order in the Consolidated Book would not result in a guaranteed
participation for an LMM. Rather, the guaranteed participation
provision of that rule is only applicable if an Electronic Complex
Order legs out individual components to trade with the quotes of an
LMM.
    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide LMMs with
guaranteed participation in relation to execution allocations of the
individual components of an Electronic Complex Order. The guaranteed
participation strikes a reasonable balance between rewarding certain
participants for making markets, and providing other market
participants an incentive to quote aggressively.\10\ Although Exchange
rules did not originally afford LMMs any guaranteed participation when
a Complex Order executes against the individual leg markets, the
Exchange believes that permitting such guaranteed participation will
further incentivize the provision of liquidity

that is aggressively priced. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to provide LMMs with guaranteed participations whether the
contra-side order is a leg of an Electronic Complex Order or an
individual order. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the allocation process for executing Complex Orders
against individual orders and quotes on the Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (Feb. 27, 2009), 74 FR
9843, 9847 (Mar. 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-14) (``The Commission
has also previously approved Specialist Pool participations of up to
40% of the size of incoming orders (after any Customer Orders have
been satisfied and only when the Directed Order guarantee has not
been applied), provided that the Specialist Pool is quoting at the
NBBO when the order is received by the Exchange. The Commission
believes that these guarantees strike a reasonable balance between
rewarding certain participants for making markets . . . , with
providing other market participants an incentive to quote
aggressively.'')
    \11\ See CBOE Rules 6.53C(c)(ii)(2), 6.53C(d)(v)(1),
6.45A(a)(i)(C), and 6.45B(a)(ii)(C) and Commentaries
.08(e)(vi)(A)(1) and .08(f)(iii) to PHLX Rule 1080 and PHLX Rule
1014(g)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes, moreover, that to receive a guaranteed
participation, the LMM is subject to heightened quoting obligations. An
LMM must provide continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading
day in its appointed issues for 90% of the time the Exchange is open
for trading in each issue.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 6.37B(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that eliminating the
inconsistency between Rule 6.76A and Rule 6.91 with respect to the
guarantee will eliminate potential confusion as to whether an LMM is
receiving its guaranteed participation when it quotes at a price equal
to the NBBO. The Exchange is also proposing a non-substantive,
technical amendment to Rule 6.91(a)(2)(ii) to fix a typographical
error.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that providing
the guaranteed participation allocation for LMMs for the execution of
incoming Electronic Complex Orders and COA-eligible orders removes
impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
(1) promoting liquidity on the Exchange because LMM quotes interact
with incoming Electronic Complex Orders and COA-eligible orders, (2)
providing consistency among Exchange rules by applying the same
allocation logic to the execution of incoming Electronic Complex
Orders/COA-eligible orders and single-leg orders, and (3) eliminating
potential confusion with respect to guaranteed participation for LMMs
trading in Electronic Complex Orders. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is designed to protect investors and the
public interest because the proposed rule change is consistent with the
allocation process for executing Complex Orders against individual
orders and quotes on CBOE and PHLX. The Exchange further believes that
the proposal will promote liquidity on the Exchange because the LMM
guaranteed participation strikes a reasonable balance between rewarding
certain participants for making markets, and providing other market
participants an incentive to quote aggressively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. Sec.  78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. Sec.  78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose a
significant burden on competition; instead, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will enhance competition by increasing liquidity
in the options market. By permitting the guaranteed participation
allocation with respect to Electronic Complex Orders and COA-eligible
orders, LMMs are encouraged to quote at the NBBO in their assigned
options series, which increases the level of liquidity in the options
market. While allocations due to guaranteed participations may direct
order flow to particular participants, the Commission has previously
approved such allocations as a reasonable balance between rewarding
such participants for making markets, and providing other market
participants an incentive to quote aggressively.\15\ By allocating 40
percent of the order to LMMs, the Exchange believes that it properly
incentivizes the provision of liquidity from LMMs, while still ensuring
that other market participants are able to participate and receive
allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 74 FR at 9847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, eliminating the current exception from the guaranteed
participation allocation will also provide consistency and eliminate
potential confusion concerning guaranteed participation allocation for
LMMs with respect to Electronic Complex Orders and COA-eligible orders.
Further, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose a
significant burden on competition since the proposal is consistent with
the allocation process on CBOE and PHLX.

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

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

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

    Because the 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 Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\17\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-90 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-NYSEArca-2013-90. 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-NYSEArca-2013-90 and should
be submitted on or before October 15, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23006 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 96405-96406]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2016-F-3880]

Novus International, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive Petition
(Animal Use); Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the
comment period for the notice of petition, published in the Federal
Register of November 8, 2016 (81 FR 78528), proposing that the food
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of poly (2-
vinylpyridine-co-styrene) as a nutrient protectant for methionine
hydroxy analog in animal food for beef cattle, dairy cattle, and
replacement dairy heifers. Additionally, the petition proposes that the
food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of
ethyl cellulose as a binder for methionine hydroxy analog to be
incorporated into animal food. FDA is reopening the comment period to
allow additional time for comments on environmental impacts.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by January 30,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-F-3880 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; 2-Vinylpyridine-Co-Styrene.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access

the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of November 8, 2016
(81 FR 78528), Novus Inc. proposed regulations be amended to provide
for the safe use of poly (2-vinylpyridine-co-styrene) as a nutrient
protectant for methionine hydroxy analog in animal food for beef
cattle, dairy cattle, and replacement dairy heifers. Additionally, the
petition proposes that the food additive regulations be amended to
provide for the safe use of ethyl cellulose as a binder for methionine
hydroxy analog to be incorporated into animal food.
    Interested persons were originally given until December 8, 2016, to
comment on the petitioner's environmental assessment. The November 8,
2016, notice of petition was published with the incorrect docket
number. A correction published in the Federal Register of November 29,
2016 (81 FR 85972). On our own initiative, we are reopening the comment
period to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and
address pertinent environmental issues.

    Dated: December 23, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31606 Filed 12-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P