[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10133-10136]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05091]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85307; File No. SR-ISE-2019-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Market
Maker Plus Program

March 13, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 27, 2019, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Maker Plus program under
Options 7, Section 3.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on March 1, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide a
supplemental rebate in addition to the linked maker rebate for SPY,
QQQ, and IWM, as described in detail below.
Background
Market Maker Plus
    As set forth in Section 3 of the Pricing Schedule, the Exchange
operates a Market Maker Plus program for regular orders in Select
Symbols \3\ where Market Makers \4\ that contribute to market quality
by maintaining tight markets are eligible for enhanced rebates. Market
Makers are evaluated each trading day for the percentage of time spent
on the National Best Bid or National Best Offer (``NBBO'') for
qualifying series that expire in two successive thirty calendar day
periods beginning on that trading day. A Market Maker Plus is a Market
Maker who is on the NBBO a specified percentage of the time on average
for the month based on daily performance in the qualifying series for
each of the two successive periods described above. Qualifying series
are series trading between $0.03 and $3.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was less than
or equal to $100) and between $0.10 and $3.00 (for options whose
underlying stock's previous trading day's last sale price was greater
than $100) in premium. If a Market Maker would qualify for a different
Market Maker Plus tier in each of the two successive periods described
above, then the lower of the two Market Maker Plus tier rebates shall
apply to all contracts.\5\ These general qualification requirements
will remain unchanged with the amendments to the applicable Market
Maker Plus rebates described in this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the Nasdaq ISE that are in the Penny Pilot Program.
    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(32).
    \5\ Market Makers may enter quotes in a symbol using one or more
unique, exchange assigned identifiers--i.e., badge/suffix
combinations. Market Maker Plus status is calculated independently
based on quotes entered in a symbol for each of the Market Maker's
badge/suffix combinations, and the highest tier achieved for any
badge/suffix combination quoting that symbol applies to executions
across all badge/suffix combinations that the member uses to trade
in that symbol. A Market Maker's worst quoting day each month for
each of the two successive periods described above, on a per symbol
basis, will be excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker
qualifies for this rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market Maker orders in Select Symbols are charged a maker fee of
$0.11 per contract; \6\ provided that Market Makers that qualify for
Market Maker Plus will not pay this fee if they meet the applicable
tier thresholds set forth in the table below, and will instead receive
the below maker rebates based on the applicable tier for which they
qualify.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This fee also applies to Market Maker orders sent to the
Exchange by Electronic Access Members.
    \7\ A $0.15 per contract fee applies instead of the applicable
fee or rebate when trading against Priority Customer complex orders
that leg into the regular order book. There will be no fee charged
or rebate provided when trading against non-Priority Customer
complex orders that leg into the regular order book.

               Select Symbols Other Than SPY, QQQ, and IWM
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Maker Plus tier
(specified percentage)                             Maker rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 (80% to less than 85%)...........              ($0.15)
Tier 2 (85% to less than 95%)...........              ($0.18)
Tier 3 (95% or greater).................              ($0.22)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            SPY, QQQ, and IWM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Maker Plus tier                           Regular          Linked
(specified percentage)                             Maker           Maker
                                                  rebate          rebate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1 (70% to less than 80%)...........         ($0.00)             N/A
Tier 2 (80% to less than 85%)...........         ($0.18)         ($0.15)
Tier 3 (85% to less than 90%)...........         ($0.22)         ($0.19)
Tier 4 (90% or greater).................         ($0.26)         ($0.23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To encourage Market Makers to maintain quality markets in SPY, QQQ,
and IWM in particular, members that maintain tight markets in those
symbols are eligible for higher regular maker rebates and may also be
eligible for linked maker rebates, as shown in the table above.
Specifically, the following symbols are linked for purposes of the
linked maker rebate: (1) SPY and QQQ, and (2) SPY and IWM. Market
Makers that qualify for Market Maker Plus Tiers 2-4 above for
executions in SPY, QQQ, and IWM may be eligible for a linked maker
rebate in a linked symbol in addition to the regular maker rebate for
the applicable tier. The linked maker rebate applies to executions in
SPY,

QQQ, and IWM if the Market Maker does not achieve the applicable tier
in that symbol but achieves the tier (i.e., any of the Market Maker
Plus Tiers 2-4) for any badge/suffix combination in the other linked
symbol, in which case the higher tier achieved applies to both symbols.
If a Market Maker would qualify for a linked maker rebate in SPY based
on the tier achieved in QQQ and the tier achieved in IWM, then the
higher of the two linked maker rebates will be applied to SPY. The
regular maker rebate will be provided in the symbol that qualifies the
Market Maker for the higher tier based on percentage of time at the
NBBO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Thus, for example, if a Market Maker achieves Tier 1 in SPY,
Tier 2 in QQQ, and Tier 3 in IWM, the Market Maker would receive the
$0.18 per contract Tier 2 regular maker rebate in QQQ, the $0.22 per
contract Tier 3 regular maker rebate in IWM, and the $0.19 per
contract Tier 3 linked maker rebate in SPY--i.e., based on the
Market Maker achieving Tier 3 in IWM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Customer Complex Order Rebates
    The Exchange currently has a pricing structure in place that
provides rebates to Priority Customer \9\ complex orders in order to
encourage members to bring that order flow to the Exchange. The
Exchange provides these rebates to members that achieve Priority
Customer Complex Tiers \10\ in Select Symbols and Non-Select Symbols
\11\ (other than NDX, NQX or MNX).\12\ All complex order volume
executed on the Exchange, including volume executed by Affiliated
Members,\13\ is included in the volume calculation, except for volume
executed as Crossing Orders \14\ and Responses to Crossing Orders.\15\
Affiliated Entities \16\ may also aggregate their complex order volume
for purposes of qualifying Appointed OFPs for these Priority Customer
rebates.\17\ As set forth in Section 4 of the Pricing Schedule, there
are currently nine Priority Customer Complex Tiers as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in Nasdaq ISE Rule
100(a)(37A).
    \10\ The Priority Customer Complex Tiers are based on total
Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity complex order volume
(excluding Crossing Orders and Responses to Crossing Orders), and
are calculated as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume
(hereinafter, ``Complex Order Volume Percentage''). ``Customer Total
Consolidated Volume'' means the total national volume cleared at The
Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF
options in that month.
    \11\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols.
    \12\ Rebates are provided per contract per leg if the order
trades with non-Priority Customer orders in the complex order book
or trades with quotes and orders on the regular order book.
    \13\ An ``Affiliated Member'' is a Member that shares at least
75% common ownership with a particular Member as reflected on the
Member's Form BD, Schedule A.
    \14\ A ``Crossing Order'' is an order executed in the Exchange's
Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Price Improvement
Mechanism (PIM) or submitted as a Qualified Contingent Cross order.
For purposes of this Pricing Schedule, orders executed in the Block
Order Mechanism are also considered Crossing Orders.
    \15\ ``Responses to Crossing Orders'' are any contra-side
interest submitted after the commencement of an auction in the
Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, Block
Order Mechanism or PIM.
    \16\ An ``Affiliated Entity'' is a relationship between an
Appointed Market Maker and an Appointed OFP for purposes of
qualifying for certain pricing specified in the Pricing Schedule. An
``Appointed Market Maker'' is a Market Maker who has been appointed
by an Order Flow Provider (``OFP'') for purposes of qualifying as an
Affiliated Entity. An ``Appointed OFP'' is an OFP (i.e., a member,
other than a Market Maker, that submits orders, as agent or
principal, to the Exchange) who has been appointed by a Market Maker
for purposes of qualifying as an Affiliated Entity. Each member may
qualify for only one Affiliated Entity relationship at any given
time. Affiliated Members are not eligible to enter an Affiliated
Entity relationship.
    \17\ The Appointed OFP would receive the rebate associated with
the qualifying volume tier based on aggregated volume.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Rebate for    Rebate for non-
        Priority Customer complex tier           Complex order volume percentage  select symbols  select symbols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................................  0.000-0.200.....................         ($0.25)         ($0.40)
Tier 2........................................  Above 0.200-0.400...............          (0.30)          (0.55)
Tier 3........................................  Above 0.400-0.600...............          (0.35)          (0.70)
Tier 4........................................  Above 0.600-0.750...............          (0.40)          (0.75)
Tier 5........................................  Above 0.750-1.000...............          (0.45)          (0.80)
Tier 6........................................  Above 1.000-1.500...............          (0.46)          (0.80)
Tier 7........................................  Above 1.500-2.000...............          (0.48)          (0.80)
Tier 8........................................  Above 2.000-3.250...............          (0.50)          (0.85)
Tier 9........................................  Above 3.250.....................          (0.50)          (0.85)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    At this time, the Exchange proposes that to the extent Market
Makers qualify for the foregoing Priority Customer complex order rebate
in Tiers 7-9, they may also become eligible to earn a supplemental
rebate in addition to the linked maker rebate tiers 2-4 in SPY, QQQ,
and IWM provided to Market Makers that qualify for Market Maker Plus,
as described above. Specifically, if Market Makers separately achieve
Priority Customer complex tiers 7-9, they will earn an additional $0.01
per contract rebate on executions in SPY, QQQ, or IWM that qualify for
the linked maker rebate program, in addition to the linked rebates
tiers 2-4. As proposed, Market Makers that qualify for Priority
Customer complex tiers 7-9 will receive a linked maker rebate of $0.16
per contract in tier 2, $0.20 per contract in tier 3, and $0.24 per
contract in tier 4, provided that they also meet the qualifications of
the applicable linked maker rebate tier.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to provide a
supplementary $0.01 per contract rebate in addition to the linked maker
rebate tiers 2-4, provided the Market Maker achieves Priority Customer
complex tiers 7-9 is reasonable because this incentive is intended to
encourage Market Makers that maintain quality markets and qualify for
Market Maker Plus to continue send more complex order flow to the
Exchange to achieve Priority Customer complex tiers 7-9 in order to
earn the additional $0.01 rebate. All market participants benefit from
increased order interaction when more order flow is available on ISE.
The

Exchange also believes that the proposed changes will continue to
encourage better market quality in SPY, QQQ, and IWM as Market Makers
would be able to earn the supplemental rebate in addition to the linked
maker rebates that they may qualify for today.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to provide the
supplemental $0.01 rebate to qualifying Market Makers are not unfairly
discriminatory as the changes apply to all Market Makers orders based
on achieving the required Priority Customer complex tier, and
qualifying for the linked maker rebate program by way of achieving the
required Market Maker Plus tier in SPY, QQQ, or IWM. Furthermore, the
Exchange continues to believe that it is not unfairly discriminatory to
offer these rebates only to Market Makers because Market Makers, and in
particular, those Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus status,
are subject to additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting
requirements) that other market participants are not.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes will encourage Market Makers that maintain quality
markets and qualify for Market Maker Plus to continue send more complex
order flow to the Exchange to achieve Priority Customer complex tiers
7-9 in order to earn the additional $0.01 rebate. All market
participants benefit from increased order interaction when more order
flow is available on ISE.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive,
or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees
to remain competitive. For the reasons described above, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive
environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \21\ thereunder.
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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2019-03 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-ISE-2019-03. 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 (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 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 filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the 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-ISE-2019-03 and should be submitted on
or before April 9, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05091 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 2005 TO: Paul Shriner, USEPA Regno Arulgnanendran, Tech Inc. Shari Goodwin, Tetra, Tech Inc.

FROM: John Sunda, SAIC RE: Evaluation of Similarities Between Intakes at Phase III Food and Kindred Products Facilities and Other Phase III Manufacturers The attached table provides a summary comparison of the NODA cost tool input data for Food and Kindred Product Facilities ( SIC Code 20XX) to all other Phase III manufacturing facilities. Two different comparisons are provided. First, only those facilities that have a design intake flow ( DIF) greater than 50 million gallons per day ( mgd) and that were assigned a cost for the NODA are included. In this comparison, only 3 Food and Kindred Product ( food) facilities were potentially subject to the Phase III regulations and therefore comparable to the complete set of 89 manufacturers costed for the NODA. Since this represented such a small number, a second analysis that includes all Phase III manufacturers ( regardless of DIF) is provided. In this case, there were 12 food facilities in a universe of 235 manufacturers. 1 As shown in the following table, some data fields show some differences, but not to a large degree. Overall, the data show that the distribution of intakes for food facilities is not significantly different than for other manufacturers.

1 Note that these facility counts include some facilities where individual intakes (" split" intakes) were costed separately. Some facilities reported more than one technology in place and also operate more than one intake, indicating that the facility has two distinct types of intake structure ( e. g., a facility may have a shoreline intake and a submerged offshore intake). None of the food facilities have intakes that necessitated individual costs. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Science Applications International Corporation. 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF INTAKE ATTRIBUTES FROM COST TOOL INPUT DATA All Phase III Facilities Phase III Facilities > 50 mgd Intake Menu Selection or Statistic SIC 20XX All Other Mfr SIC 20XX All Other Mfr Number of Facilities* Number of Facilities*

12 235 3 89 Input ( Intake) Location Input ( Intake) Location Shoreline Intake ( flush, recessed) 67% 28% 100% 30%

Intake Canal 8% 14% 0% 22%

Near shore submerged intake 25% 20% 0% 4%

Waterbody Type Waterbody Type Estuary 17% 7% 0% 11%

Great Lake 8% 6% 0% 13%

Freshwater River 75% 76% 100% 64%

Mean Intake Depth, ft Mean Intake Depth, ft Mean 12.2 19.1 11.3 18.9 Intake Well Depth, ft Intake Well Depth, ft Mean 12.9 21.7 19.6 23.2 Design Intake Flow, gpm Design Intake Flow, gpm Mean 37,301 68,171 118,333 145,715 MRIF gpm MRIF gpm Mean 22,649 42,457 66,836 97,409 Average Intake Flow, gpm Average Intake Flow, gpm Mean 18,930 63,773 56,106 80,492 Design Screen Velocity ( fps) Design Screen Velocity ( fps)

Mean 1.2 1.6 0.8 1.5 Water Type Water Type Freshwater 83% 91% 100% 85%

Marine 17% 9% 0% 15%

Impingement Tech In Place Impingement Tech In Place None of those listed 25% 33% 0% 12%

Traveling Screens 50% 35% 100% 67%

Passive Intake 17% 31% 0% 20%

Barrier Net 8% 0% 0% 0%

Qualified Impingement? Qualified Impingement?

Not Qualified 67% 57% 33% 66%

Qualified 33% 43% 67% 34% * Includes " split" facilities


Phone Log

Health Care Industry Study

Unused Pharmaceuticals

Quest Diagnostics Laboratories

On December 10th, Samantha Lewis (EPA) spoke with Paul Casano, an
Environmental and Safety Coordinator at Quest Diagnostics in NJ.
Samantha asked Paul if Quest Diagnostics used any pharmaceuticals at
their facilities.  Paul replied that “we don’t deal with any type of
pharmaceuticals” at Quest Diagnostics.

Paul also gave Samantha the number and contact number for Andrea
Hernandez<PHONE_NUMBER>, who is with Quest Diagnostics corporate
Environmental Health and Safety Department.  In a returned voice mail
message, Andrea also assured Samantha that Quest Diagnostics does not
use any pharmaceuticals at their facilities.


5-11-12

What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations?

●	When EPA promulgates a new or revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to designate all areas in the nation as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, pursuant to section 107(d)(1).

●	The CAA requires EPA to complete the initial area designation process within 2 years of promulgating the NAAQS. However, if the Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations within that time frame, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for designation decisions by up to 1 additional year.

●	By not later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including appropriate area boundaries, to  EPA.

●	Important factors that EPA recommends that states and tribes consider in making their recommendations include air quality data, emissions data, traffic and commuting patterns, growth rates and patterns, meteorology, geography/topography, and jurisdictional boundaries.

●	EPA reviews the state recommendations and is authorized to make any modifications the Administrator deems necessary. The statute does not define the term "necessary," but EPA interprets this to authorize the Administrator to modify designations that did not meet the statutory requirements or were otherwise inconsistent with the facts or analysis deemed appropriate by EPA.

●	If EPA is considering modifications to a state's initial recommendation, EPA is required to notify the state of any such intended modifications to its recommendation not less than 120 days prior to EPA's promulgation of the final designation.

●	If the state does not agree with EPA's intended modification, it then has an opportunity to respond to the EPA to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposed by EPA is inappropriate.

●	If a state fails to provide any recommendation for an area, in whole or in part, EPA still must promulgate a designation that the Administrator deems appropriate.

●	Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area as, "any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant." If an area meets either prong of this definition, then the EPA is obligated to designate the area as "nonattainment."

●	Nonattainment areas are subject to planning and emission reduction requirements as specified in the CAA.  EPA works with states and tribes to share the responsibility of reducing the air pollution.

●	Designation rules do not establish any control requirements. They do not create any additional requirements beyond those of the CAA and the NAAQS. Rather, regulatory plans adopted by states in response to the CAA's requirements for designated areas will form the basis for any compliance costs for a specific area.  Section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA exempts designations from notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

●	OMB has determined designation actions are exempt from OMB review.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43765-43766]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket No. FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1413]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2014, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination notice that contained an erroneous
table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in
lieu of the information published at 79 FR 27339. The table provided
here represents the proposed flood hazard determinations and
communities affected for Plumas County, California, and Incorporated
Areas.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where
applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community
are available for inspection at both the online location and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1413, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations

shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data
requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal.
Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations will also be
considered before the FIRM and FIS report are made final.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 79
FR 27339 in the May 13, 2014, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA
published a table titled ``Plumas County, California, and Incorporated
Areas''. This table contained inaccurate information as to the
community map repository for the Unincorporated Areas of Plumas County
featured in the table. In this document, FEMA is publishing a table
containing the accurate information. The information provided below
should be used in lieu of that previously published.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Plumas County, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Plumas County..  Plumas County Engineering/
                                          Planning Department, 555 Main
                                          Street, Quincy, CA 95971.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 11, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-17541 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23885-23886]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R04-RCRA-2006-0375; FRL-8161-1]

Georgia: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Georgia has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to
Georgia. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule.
EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because
we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments
that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in
the preamble of the immediate final rule. Unless we get written
comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the
immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes,
and we will not take further action on this proposal.
    If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw
the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will respond
to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You
may not have another opportunity for comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 25, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
RCRA-2006-0375 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (prior to faxing, please notify the
EPA contact listed below).
     Mail: Send written comments to Audrey E. Baker, RCRA
Services Section, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
     Hand Delivery: Audrey E. Baker, RCRA Services Section,
RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-
2006-0375. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
 your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
).

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. You may view and copy

Georgia's application at The EPA, Region 4, Library, The Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8960. The Library is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Library telephone number is (404)
562-8190.
    You may also view and copy Georgia's application from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division, 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Suite 1154 East
Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334-4910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey E. Baker, RCRA Services
Section, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-

8960;<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 3, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 06-3850 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6422-6423]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61473; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-087]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Repeal NASD
Rules 2760 and 2780, Incorporated NYSE Rules 2B and 411, and the
Interpretation to Incorporated NYSE Rule 411(a)(ii)(5) as Part of the
Process of Developing the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

February 2, 2010.
    On December 4, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to repeal NASD Rule 2760 (Offerings ``At the
Market''), NASD Rule 2780 (Solicitation of Purchases on an Exchange to
Facilitate a Distribution of Securities), Incorporated NYSE Rule 2B (No
Affiliation between Exchange and any Member Organization), Incorporated
NYSE Rule 411 (Erroneous Reports) and the Interpretation to
Incorporated NYSE Rule 411(a)(ii)(5) as part of the process of
developing a consolidated FINRA rulebook. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 29, 2009.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61211 (December 18,
2009), 74 FR 68889. (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.\4\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\5\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
appropriate to eliminate confusion and reduce regulatory overlap by
repealing rules that are similar to federal rules and regulations or
are specific to the NYSE and its marketplace. As further described in
the Notice, FINRA stated that NASD Rule 2760 is similar to the
Commission's Rule 15c1-8 under the Act,\6\ which FINRA believes
appropriately protects investors without duplication by NASD Rule 2760.
FINRA also stated that NASD Rule 2780 duplicates the Commission's Rule
10b-2, which was rescinded by the Commission in 1993 because it was
duplicative of other provisions of the federal securities laws,
including the Commission's Regulation M.\7\ Therefore, FINRA believes
that NASD Rule 2780 should be deleted. In addition, FINRA stated that
NYSE Rules 2B and 411 and the Interpretation to Incorporated NYSE Rule
411(a)(ii)(5) relate to activity that concerns solely the NYSE
marketplace and, in the case of Rule 411(b)(2), is duplicative of
existing Commission recordkeeping requirements. Thus, FINRA believes
that these Incorporated NYSE Rules and Interpretation should not be
included in the consolidated FINRA rulebook. In approving this proposed
rule change, the Commission notes that FINRA members and their
associated persons are required to comply with all applicable federal
securities laws and that FINRA, as a self-regulatory organization, has
the obligation to have the capacity to enforce compliance by its
members and their associated persons with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.15c1-8.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32100 (April 2,
1993), 58 FR 18145 (April 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-087) be, and it hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2734 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9689-9690]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02925]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL--9778-2]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Chartered Science
Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the chartered
SAB to: (1) Receive an update briefing on the EPA's Office of Research
and Development's (ORD) implementation of strategic research plans; (2)
conduct quality reviews of three draft SAB reports [on the use of
computational toxicology (CompTox) to advance risk assessment; on EPA's
retrospective study of the costs of EPA regulations; and on
methodologies for estimating air emissions for broiler animal feeding
operations and for lagoons and basins at swine and dairy animal feeding
operations]; and (3) to discuss information provided in the agency's
regulatory agenda, specifically planned actions and their supporting
science.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Thursday, March 7, 2013, from
10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Friday, March 8, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Washington Marriott, 1221
22nd Street NW., Washington, DC, 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the meeting may contact Dr. Angela
Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board
(1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(202) 565-2098; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information
concerning the SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at
42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice
to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and
regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB
will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff
Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is
hereby given that the SAB will hold a public meeting to discuss and
deliberate on the topics below.

Briefing on Implementation of ORD Strategic Research Plans

    The SAB and ORD's Board of Scientific Councilors (BOSC) provided a
joint report to the Administrator in September 2012 entitled
Implementation of ORD Strategic Research Plans: A Joint Report of the
Science Advisory Board and ORD Board of Scientific Counselors (EPA-SAB-
12-012). ORD will provide a briefing to update SAB members on recent
significant ORD activities to implement the recommendations in the ORD-
BOSC report, available on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/
sab/sabproduct.nsf/3822EB089

FCCB18D85257A8700800679/$File/EPA-SAB-12-012-unsigned.pdf.

Draft SAB Report on the Use of CompTox To Advance Risk Assessment

    The chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of a draft report
providing advice to assist the EPA in advancing the application of
ORD's CompTox research for human health risk assessment to meet the
agency's programmatic needs. The SAB undertook this initiative to
identify applications for outputs from the CompTox Research Program,
barriers to their use, and strategies for overcoming those barriers.
The CompTox Research Program conducts research that integrates advances
in molecular biology, chemistry and innovative computer science to more
effectively and efficiently rank chemicals based on risks. The goal of
the CompTox Research Program is to provide high-throughput chemical
screening data and decision support tools for assessing chemical
exposure, hazard, and risk to human health and the environment.
Information about this advisory activity can be found on the Web at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/CompTox%20data%20in%20RA?OpenDocument.

Draft SAB Report on EPA's Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA
Regulations

    The chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of a draft report
providing a review of the EPA's retrospective study of the costs of EPA
regulations. The EPA conducts benefit-cost analyses of its rules and
regulations and strives to use the best available information to
conduct its analyses. Benefit-cost analyses are by definition
predictive, relying on ex ante or forecasted information. To improve
future benefit-cost analyses, it is important to learn how well EPA's
estimates compare with actual (ex post) costs and, if they differ
substantially, to understand why. EPA's National Center for
Environmental Economics prepared a series of case studies attempting to
assess compliance costs retrospectively that, if successful, could help
identify reasons for any systematic differences between ex ante and ex
post cost estimates. The EPA requested the SAB's review of its approach
to assessing ex post costs as detailed in a draft paper entitled
``Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: An Interim
Report'' (March 2012). Information about this advisory activity can be
found on the Web at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Retrospective%20Cost%20Study?OpenDocument.

Draft Report on EPA's Emissions Estimation Methodologies (EEMs) From
Broiler Animal Feeding Operations and From Lagoons and Basins at Swine
and Dairy Animal Feeding Operations

    The chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of a draft report
providing review of EPA's draft methodologies for estimating air
emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs). The EPA developed the
draft methodologies to address commitments in a voluntary air
compliance consent agreement signed in 2005 between the agency and
nearly 14,000 broiler, dairy, egg layer and swine AFO operations. The
goals of the agreement are to reduce air pollution, monitor AFO
emissions, promote a national consensus on methodologies for estimating
emissions from AFOs, and ensure compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act. The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has requested the SAB
review. Information about this advisory activity can be found on the
Web at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/AFO-AEEM?OpenDocument.

Discussion of Information Provided in the Agency's Semiannual
Regulatory Agenda

    The EPA has recently underscored the need to routinely inform the
SAB about proposed and planned agency actions that have a scientific or
technical basis. Accordingly, the agency provided notice to the SAB
that the Office of Management and Budget published the ``Unified
(Regulatory) Agenda'' on the Web on December 21, 2012 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/). The SAB will discuss whether it should
provide advice and comment on the adequacy of the scientific and
technical basis for EPA actions included in the Agenda.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: A meeting agenda and other
materials for the meeting will be placed on the SAB Web site at http://epa.gov/sab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of
the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the EPA's charge,
meeting materials, or the group providing advice. Input from the public
to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific
or technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes.
Persons interested in providing oral statements at the March 7-8, 2013,
meeting should contact Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, in writing (preferably
via email) at the contact information noted above by February 27, 2013.
Written Statements: Written statements for the March 7-8, 2013, meeting
should be received in the SAB Staff Office by February 27, 2013, so
that the information may be made available to the SAB for its
consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements should be
supplied to the DFO in the following formats: either an electronic copy
(preferred) via email (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS
Word, WordPerfect, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows
98/2000/XP format) or in hard copy with original signature. Submitters
are asked to provide electronic versions of each document submitted
with and without signatures, because the SAB Staff Office does not
publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the
public should be aware that their personal contact information, if
included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site.
Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of
the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Nugent at the phone
number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days prior
to the meeting, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: January 30, 2013.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-02925 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16612-16614]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06189]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0738; FRL-9791-4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
Revision To Increase Public Availability of the Administrative Record
File

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action on an amendment that was
withdrawn in a January 22, 2013, Federal Register withdrawal notice.
The amendment that is the subject of today's final rule adds language
to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) to broaden the technology, to include computer telecommunications
or other electronic means, that the lead agency is permitted to use to
make the administrative record file available to the public.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0738. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0738). This Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
Superfund Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Dreyfus at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(dreyfus.melissa@epa.gov), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5204P.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA publishing this final rule?

    On November 7, 2012, EPA published in the Federal Register a Direct
Final rule entitled National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan; Revision to Increase Public Availability of the
Administrative Record File (77 FR 66729) (hereafter the Direct Final
rule). This Direct Final rule added language to 40 CFR 300.805(c) of
the NCP to broaden the technology, to include computer
telecommunications or other electronic means, that the lead agency is
permitted to use to make the administrative record file available to
the public. At the same time, EPA also published a parallel Proposed
rule (77 FR 66783) that requested comment on the same change to the
NCP. We stated in that Direct Final rule that if we received adverse
comment on the amendment by December 7, 2012, the affected amendment
would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register of the amendment. We received one adverse comment and
as a result withdrew the amendment on January 22, 2013 (78 FR 4333).
EPA is publishing today's Final rule to address the adverse comment
received on the amendment listed above and to finalize this amendment.

II. Background

A. What does this amendment do?

    In the November 7, 2012, Direct Final rule, 40 CFR 300.805(c)--
``Location of the Administrative Record File'' in Subpart I--
``Administrative Record for Selection of Response Action'' of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, was
revised to acknowledge advancements in technologies used to manage and
convey information to the public. Specifically, this revision to the
NCP added language to broaden the technology, to include computer
telecommunications or other electronic means, that the lead agency is
permitted to use to make the administrative record file available to
the public regarding documents that form the basis for the selection of
a response action. This amendment to the NCP does not limit the lead
agency's ability to make the administrative record file available to
the public in traditional forms such as paper and microform. Based on
the preferences of the community and the lead agency's assessment of
the site-specific situation, the lead agency will determine whether to
provide: (1) Traditional forms (e.g. paper copies; microform) (2)
electronic resources, or (3) both traditional forms and electronic
resources. The lead agency should assess the capacity and resources of
the public to utilize and maintain an electronic- or computer
telecommunications-based repository to make a decision on which
approach suits a specific site.

B. What comment did EPA receive and how is it addressed?

    While three comments were submitted in a timely manner, only one of
them is considered to be substantive. This comment, submitted
anonymously, stated that ``This modification to the current methods of
conveying information to the general public is prudent and likely to
increase public awareness of activities relating to the National
Contingency Plan.'' However, the commenter was ``* * * curious as to
how the `preferences of the community and the lead agency's assessment
of the site-specific situation' will be determined.'', as ``Within any
single community, there is probably going to be a range of capabilities
and preferences regarding the delivery of a record file.'' The
commenter went on to explain ``In determining community preference, the
Agency should be cautious, again, of allowing the

overrepresentation of special interests, for these interests may
attempt to project a community preference for traditional microform
files so that public participation does not increase. But, as the
Proposed rule explains, the lead agency will be free to determine that
both electronic and traditional microform information be available,
which, when faced with competing views, is best for effectuating the
purpose of this necessary and wise amendment.''
    In response to this comment, EPA agrees that the amendment being
promulgated today is a useful and important change that will give the
lead agency the ability to serve the information needs of a broader
population. In the Direct Final rule (and parallel Proposed rule), EPA
explained that the lead agency should assess the capacity and resources
of the public to utilize and maintain an electronic- or computer
telecommunications-based repository to make a decision on which
approach suits a specific site. Based on the preferences of the
community and the lead agency's assessment of the site-specific
situation, the lead agency will determine whether to provide: (1)
Traditional forms (e.g. paper copies; microform) (2) electronic
resources, or (3) both traditional forms and electronic resources.
    Further, EPA agrees with the commenter's remark that ``In
determining community preference, the Agency should be cautious, again,
of allowing the overrepresentation of special interests, for these
interests may attempt to project a community preference for traditional
microform files so that public participation does not increase.''
Community preferences and access to technological resources may be
gleaned through community interviews conducted as part of the planning
for the Community Involvement Plan (CIP) at a site.\1\ A CIP is a site-
specific strategy to enable meaningful community involvement throughout
the Superfund cleanup process. Consistent with the NCP
[300.415(n)(3)(ii); 300.415(n)(4)(i); and 300.430(c)(2)(ii)(A-C)], the
lead agency prepares a Community Involvement Plan (formerly called a
Community Relations Plan) ``* * * based on the community interviews and
other relevant information, specifying the community relations
activities that the lead agency expects to undertake during the
remedial response.'' In addition, consistent with the NCP [40 CFR
300.415(n)(3)(i); 40 CFR 300.415(n)(4)(i); and 300.430(c)(2)(i)] the
lead agency conducts ``interviews with local officials, community
residents, public interest groups, or other interested or affected
parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns and information
needs, and to learn how and when citizens would like to be involved in
the Superfund process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Superfund
Community Involvement Toolkit. Community Involvement Plans.
Available online: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/pdfs/toolkit/ciplans.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA generally recommends that interviews be conducted with at least
25 community members, though a complex site may warrant 100 or more
interviewees, and a small or remote site might warrant less than 25
interviewees.\2\ Conducting community interviews typically is a
particularly effective way to gather information about community needs,
questions, and concerns, as well as expectations and unique needs or
cultural behaviors, customs, and values. Community interviews also give
the lead agency the opportunity to hear the preferences of community
members that may have otherwise hesitated to share during a public
meeting or availability session. The information and insights gained
from community interviews will help the lead agency to assess the
capacity and resources of the community to utilize and maintain an
electronic- or computer telecommunications-based repository, and to
make a decision on which approach suits a specific site and best
encourages the community's participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Superfund
Community Involvement Toolkit. Community Interviews. Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/community/pdfs/toolkit/5cominterv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, the lead agency is responsible for ensuring
that all electronic and information technology is accessible to persons
with disabilities. This typically involves procuring, creating,
maintaining and using electronic and information technology, including,
Web sites, software, hardware, video and multimedia, and
telecommunications, that is Section 508 compliant,\3\ as well as
incorporating other techniques to ensure accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Further information on Section 508 is available online:
http://www.section508.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the amendment being promulgated today is a useful and
important change that will give the lead agency the ability to serve
the information needs of a broader population, while maintaining the
ability to provide the administrative record file to the public as: (1)
Traditional forms (e.g. paper copies; microform) (2) electronic
resources, or (3) both traditional forms and electronic resources. EPA
is today promulgating the change to add language to 40 CFR 300.805(c)
as was proposed.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As explained above, this rule takes final action on an amendment
for which we received adverse comment in response to our November 7,
2012, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
Revision to Increase Public Availability of the Administrative Record
File Direct Final rule (and parallel Proposed rule).
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. This action merely adds language to 40 CFR 300.805(c) of
the NCP to broaden the technology, to include computer
telecommunications or other electronic means, that the lead agency is
permitted to use to make the administrative record file available to
the public. This action will enable the lead agency to serve the
information needs of a broader population while maintaining the ability
to provide traditional means of public access, such as paper copies and
microform, to the administrative record file. This action does not
impose any requirements on any entity, including small entities.
Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), after considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
does not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments as described in Sections 202 and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This
action does not create new binding legal requirements that
substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175
(63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant
Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not
involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272) do not apply. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.,
generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the
agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a
copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Because this action does not
contain legally binding requirements, it is not subject to the
Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: March 11, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    For the reasons set out above, title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.

0
2. Section 300.805 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  300.805  Location of the administrative record file.

* * * * *
    (c) The lead agency may make the administrative record file
available to the public in microform, computer telecommunications, or
other electronic means.

[FR Doc. 2013-06189 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P