[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52763-52766]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 383

RIN 2105-AE51

Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts

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

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the Department of
Transportation is issuing an interim final rule to adjust for inflation
the maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of certain aviation
economic statutes and the rules and orders issued pursuant to these
statutes.

DATES: The rule is effective August 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart A. Hindman, Trial Attorney,
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-9342,<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulatory Information

    DOT is promulgating this interim final rule to ensure that the
maximum civil penalty liability amounts set forth in 14 CFR part 383
that may be assessed by the Department as a result of violations of
certain economic provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code
reflect the statutorily mandated maximums as adjusted for inflation.
Pursuant to section 701 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), DOT is required
to promulgate a ``catch-up adjustment'' through an interim final rule.
Public Law 114-74. The 2015 Act requires the Department to adjust
certain civil penalty amounts and provides clear direction for how to
adjust the civil penalties, which leaves the agency little room for
discretion. By operation of the 2015 Act, DOT must publish the catch-up
adjustment by July 1, 2016, and the new levels must take effect no
later than August 1, 2016. For these reasons, pursuant to the 2015 Act
and 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 553(d)(3), DOT finds that good cause exists
for immediate implementation of this interim final rule without prior
notice and comment and with an immediate effective date.

II. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,
which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of
civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The
2015 Act requires agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary
penalties with an initial ``catch-up'' adjustment through an interim
final rule (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for
inflation.
    The method of calculating inflation adjustments in the 2015 Act
differs substantially from the methods used in past inflation
adjustment rulemakings conducted pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment
Act. Previously, adjustments to civil penalty amounts were conducted
under requirements that mandated significant rounding of figures. For
example, a penalty increase

that was greater than $1,000, but less than or equal to $10,000 would
be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. While this allowed
penalties to be kept at round numbers, it meant that penalties would
often not be increased at all if inflation had increased but not by a
large enough factor. Furthermore, increases to penalties were capped at
10 percent. Over time, this formula caused penalties to lose value
relative to total inflation.
    The 2015 Act has removed these rounding requirements; now, penalty
amounts are simply rounded to the nearest $1. While this results in
penalty amounts that are no longer round numbers, it does ensure that
penalty amounts will be increased each year to a figure commensurate
with the actual calculated inflation. Furthermore, the 2015 Act
``resets'' the inflation calculations by excluding prior inflationary
adjustments made under the Inflation Adjustment Act, which contributed
to a decline in the real value of penalty levels. To do this, the 2015
Act requires agencies to identify, for each penalty, the year and
corresponding amount(s) for which the maximum penalty level or range of
minimum and maximum penalties was originally enacted by Congress or
last adjusted by statute or regulation, other than pursuant to the
Inflation Adjustment Act. DOT has determined that the maximum levels
for the civil penalties that may be assessed for violations of aviation
economic statutes and regulations pursuant to 14 CFR part 383 were
established by Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of
2003 (``Vision 100'') (Section 503, Pub. L. 108-176; 117 Stat. 2490,
December 12, 2003), and have not been adjusted since, excluding
Inflation Adjustment Act revisions.

III. Completing the Catch-Up Adjustment

    The table below shows the penalties that we are increasing pursuant
to the 2015 Act. These calculations follow guidance by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), M-16-06, ``Implementation of the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,''
dated Feb. 24, 2016.
    In the first column, we have provided a description of the penalty.
In the second column (``Citation,'') we have provided the United States
Code (U.S.C.) statutory citation for the provision that authorizes that
penalty. In the third column (``Current Penalty''), we have listed the
existing penalty, and in the fourth column (``Baseline Penalty''), we
have provided the amount of the penalty as enacted by Congress or
changed through a mechanism other than pursuant to the Inflation
Adjustment Act, which in the case of all five of these adjustments is
by Vision 100. The multiplier that we have used to adjust from the CPI-
U of the year of this last adjustment (2003) to the CPI-U for the
current year was provided by the Office of Management and Budget; it is
1.28561. Multiplying the baseline penalty by the multiplier provides
the ``New Penalty'' listed in the final column, rounded to the nearest
dollar. In accordance with the 2015 Act and OMB memorandum M-16-06,
however, DOT did not increase penalty levels by more than 150 percent
of the corresponding levels in effect on November 2, 2015. The adjusted
penalty is to be the lesser of either the preliminary new penalty
arrived at via the multiplier or an amount equal to 250% of the current
penalty. In the case of these five penalties, the lesser number was the
figure that resulted from applying the multiplier.
    Where applicable, DOT has also made conforming edits to regulatory
text. In addition, we are deleting a reference to the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 in section 383.1(b) of the regulatory text. The
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 amended the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. Additionally, in the
regulatory text for section 383.1(b) we are deleting the reference to
the Inflation Adjustment Act because it has been amended by the 2015
Act.
    Pursuant to the 2015 Act, in the event a violation took place prior
to the effective date of the new penalty level, and the DOT assessed a
penalty after the effective date, the new penalty level shall be
assessed in a manner consistent with applicable law. The 2015 Act does
not alter DOT's statutory authority, to the extent it exists, to assess
penalties below the maximum level. As the 2015 Act applies to penalties
assessed after the effective date of the applicable adjustment, the
2015 Act adjusts penalties prospectively. The 2015 Act does not
retrospectively change previously assessed or enforced penalties that
DOT is actively collecting or has collected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Current        Base line
         Description                        Citation                  penalty         penalty       New penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General civil penalty for      49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1)............         $27,500         $25,000         $32,140
 violations of certain
 aviation economic
 regulations and statutes.
General civil penalty for      49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1)............           1,100           1,100           1,414
 violations of certain
 aviation economic
 regulations and statutes
 involving an individual or
 small business concern.
Civil penalties for            49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A).........          11,000          10,000          12,856
 individuals or small
 businesses for violations of
 most provisions of Chapter
 401 of Title 49, including
 the anti-discrimination
 provisions of sections 40127
 and 41705 and rules and
 orders issued pursuant to
 these provisions.
Civil penalties for            49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(C).........           5,500           5,000           6,428
 individuals or small
 businesses for violations of
 49 U.S.C. 41719 and rules
 and orders issued pursuant
 to that provision.
Civil penalties for            49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(D).........           2,750           2,500           3,214
 individuals or small
 businesses for violations of
 49 U.S.C. 41712 or consumer
 protection rules and orders
 issued pursuant to that
 provision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This interim final rule has been evaluated in accordance with
existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 or DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures; therefore, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
    The increase of the maximum civil penalty will impact entities and
individuals that are found to be in violation of certain aviation
economic and consumer protection statutes, rules, and orders. There is
no direct cost to any regulated entity or individual unless the entity
or individual is found to have committed a violation. Furthermore, the
economic impact of the interim final rule is expected to be minimal to
the extent that preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not
warranted.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
requires an assessment of the impact of proposed and final rules on
small entities unless the agency certifies that the proposed regulation
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. An air carrier or a foreign air carrier is a small
business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft
(i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload capacity). See
14 CFR 399.73.
    The revision of the civil penalty amount will raise potential
penalties for individuals and small businesses with regard to
violations of certain aviation economic regulations and statutes or
consumer protection rules and orders. Because the largest increase to
the maximum civil penalty affecting small entities is only $2,856, the
aggregate economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities should
be minimal and would only be borne by those entities found in violation
of the regulations.
    Accordingly, I hereby certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In addition, DOT has determined the RFA does not apply to this
rulemaking. The 2015 Inflation Act requires DOT to publish an interim
final rule and does not require DOT to complete notice and comment
procedures under the APA. The Small Business Administration's A Guide
for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (2012), provides that:

    If, under the APA or any rule of general applicability governing
federal grants to state and local governments, the agency is
required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
the RFA must be considered [citing 5 U.S.C. 604(a)]. . . . If an
NPRM is not required, the RFA does not apply.

    Therefore, because the 2015 Inflation Act does not require an NPRM
for this rulemaking, the RFA does not apply.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This interim final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132
(``Federalism''). This regulation has no substantial direct effects on
the States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. It does not contain any provision that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments. It does not contain any new provision that preempts state
law, because states are already preempted from regulating in this area
under the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because none of the
measures in the rule will significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial
direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a
proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish
a document in the Federal Register providing notice of and a 60-day
comment period on, and otherwise consult with members of the public and
affected agencies concerning, each proposed collection of information.
This rule imposes no new information reporting or record keeping
necessitating clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
interim final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is
categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979).
Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA
implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the
agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are
present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id.
Paragraph 3.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically excludes
``[a]ctions relating to consumer protection, including regulations.''
The purpose of this rulemaking is to adjust the maximum civil penalties
for violations of certain aviation consumer protection statutes,
regulations, and orders. The Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances
present in connection with this rulemaking.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department analyzed the interim final rule under the factors in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The Department considered
whether the rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any one year. The Department has determined that this
interim final rule will not result in such expenditures. Accordingly,
this interim final rule is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 383 as set forth below:

PART 383--CIVIL PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 383 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584; Sec. 503,
Pub. L. 108-176, 117 Stat. 2490; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890;
Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104-134.

0
2. Section 383.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  383.1  Purpose and periodic adjustment.

    (a) Purpose. This part adjusts the civil penalty liability amounts
prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 46301(a) for inflation in accordance with the
Act cited in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Periodic Adjustment. DOT will periodically adjust the maximum
civil penalties set forth in 49 U.S.C. 46301 and this part as required
by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as
amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
Improvements Act of 2015.

0
3. Section 383.2 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  383.2  Amount of penalty.

    Civil penalties payable to the U.S. Government for violations of
Title 49, Chapters 401 through 421, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46301(a), are
as follows:
    (a) A general civil penalty of not more than $32,140 (or $1,414 for
individuals or small businesses) applies to violations of statutory
provisions and rules or orders issued under those provisions, other
than those listed in paragraph (b) of this section, (see 49 U.S.C.
46301(a)(1));
    (b) With respect to small businesses and individuals,
notwithstanding the general $1,414 civil penalty, the following civil
penalty limits apply:
    (1) A maximum civil penalty of $12,856 applies for violations of
most provisions of Chapter 401, including the anti-discrimination
provisions of sections 40127 (general provision), and 41705
(discrimination against the disabled) and rules and orders issued
pursuant to those provisions (see 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A));
    (2) A maximum civil penalty of $6,428 applies for violations of
section 41719 and rules and orders issued pursuant to that provision
(see 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(C)); and
    (3) A maximum civil penalty of $3,214 applies for violations of
section 41712 or consumer protection rules or orders (see 49 U.S.C.
46301(a)(5)(D)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated at 49 CFR
1.27(n), on: August 5, 2016.
Molly J. Moran,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-19003 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75229-75231]
[DOCID:fr19de05-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52939; File No. SR-NASD-2005-137]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Modify Pricing for NASD Members Using the Nasdaq Market
Center and Nasdaq's Brut Facility

December 9, 2005.
    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 November 22, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for NASD members using the
Nasdaq Market Center and Nasdaq's Brut Facility (``Brut''). Nasdaq
states that it will implement the proposed rule change for a pilot
period running from December 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *

7010. System Services

    (a)-(h) No change.
    (i) Nasdaq Market Center and Brut Facility Order Execution
    (1)-(4) No Change.
    (5) There shall be no charges or credits for order entry,
execution, routing, or cancellation by members accessing the Nasdaq
Market Center or Nasdaq's Brut Facility to buy or sell exchange-listed
securities subject to the Consolidated Quotations Service and
Consolidated Tape Association plans, other than:
    (A) The charges in Rule 7010(i)(1) for Exchange-Traded Funds,
    (B) Charges described in Rule 7010(d),
    (C) A fee of $0.0004 per share executed for orders delivered by
Nasdaq's Brut Facility to an exchange using the exchange's proprietary
order delivery system if such orders do not attempt to execute in
Nasdaq's Brut Facility or the Nasdaq Market Center prior to routing to
the exchange, [and]
    (D) a fee of $0.009 per share executed for any limit order
delivered by Nasdaq's Brut Facility to the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') using the NYSE's proprietary order delivery system if such
an order is not an on-close order, is not executed in the opening, and
remains at the NYSE for more than 5 minutes[.], and
    (E) for a pilot period beginning December 1, 2005 and ending
December 31, 2005, a credit of $0.0005 per share executed to a member
providing liquidity for a transaction in the following stocks: Advanced
Micro Devices Inc. (AMD); Apache Corp. (APA); AT&T Corp. (T); Avaya,
Inc. (AV); Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI); BJ Services Co. (BJS); Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. (BMY); Burlington Resources, Inc. (BR); Calpine Corp.
(CPN); Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH); Citigroup Inc. (C); ConocoPhillips
(COP); Corning Inc. (GLW); Devon Energy Corp. (DVN); EMC Corp. (EMC);
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM); Ford Motor Co. (F); Gateway, Inc. (GTW);
General Electric Co. (GE); Halliburton Co. (HAL); Hewlett-Packard Co.
(HPQ); Johnson & Johnson (JNJ); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM); Kohl's
Corp. (KSS); LSI Logic Corp. (LSI); Micron Technology, Inc. (MU);
Motorola, Inc. (MOT); Noble Corp. (NE); Occidental Petroleum Corp.
(OXY); Office Depot Inc. (ODP); Pfizer Inc. (PFE); Phelps Dodge Corp.
(PD); Pulte Homes, Inc. (PHM); Qwest Communications International Inc.
(Q); Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB); Solectron Corp. (SLR); Sovereign Bancorp,
Inc. (SOV); Time Warner, Inc. (TWX); Valero Energy Corp. (VLO); and
Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ).
    (6) No change.
    (j)-(v) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is proposing to modify its fee schedule for transaction
executions in certain stocks listed on markets other than Nasdaq by
creating a pilot program under which liquidity providers (i.e., market
participants that put quotes or

orders that are accessed by incoming orders) would receive a credit of
$0.0005 per share executed.\5\ Nasdaq currently offers a liquidity
provider credit with respect to securities whose primary listing is on
Nasdaq, and its credit for transactions in exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs'') listed on the American Stock Exchange (``Amex'') was
recently extended to ETFs listed on other exchanges.\6\ Nasdaq notes
that, with the exception of ETFs, however, such a credit is not
currently offered with respect to stocks whose primary listing is not
on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Telephone conversation between John Yetter, Associate
General Counsel, Exchange, and David Liu and Michou Nguyen,
Attorneys, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on December 6,
2005.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52757 (November 9,
2005), 70 FR 69791 (November 17, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-125); and 52758
(November 9, 2005), 70 FR 69793 (November 17, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-
126).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq states that with the enhanced opportunities for electronic
trading of non-Nasdaq listed stocks occasioned by market participant
demand and upcoming regulatory changes, however, it expects that new
competitive opportunities will develop for Nasdaq and other electronic
venues. Nasdaq believes that the quality of executions that it can
offer in such an environment will depend on the degree to which market
participants in a position to provide liquidity opt to do so through
Nasdaq. Because the market for executions of these stocks has not yet
been subject to vigorous competition, and because the balance between
the cost of providing credits and the revenue growth associated with
increased liquidity provision has therefore not been tested in a fully
competitive environment, Nasdaq believes that a pilot program,
consisting of a modest $0.0005 per share credit paid with respect to a
limited number of stocks, would allow an assessment of the costs and
benefits of the credit to Nasdaq and its market participants. The
Nasdaq represents that the forty stocks selected for inclusion in the
pilot program \7\ are all stocks whose propensity to trade on
electronic venues, high daily trading volumes, and large market
capitalizations may correlate with a relatively high degree of price
elasticity with regard to liquidity provision.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD); Apache Corp. (APA); AT&T
Corp. (T); Avaya, Inc. (AV); Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI); BJ Services
Co. (BJS); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY); Burlington Resources,
Inc. (BR); Calpine Corp. (CPN); Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH);
Citigroup Inc. (C); ConocoPhillips (COP); Corning Inc. (GLW); Devon
Energy Corp. (DVN); EMC Corp. (EMC); Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM); Ford
Motor Co. (F); Gateway, Inc. (GTW); General Electric Co. (GE);
Halliburton Co. (HAL); Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ); Johnson & Johnson
(JNJ); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM); Kohl's Corp. (KSS); LSI Logic
Corp. (LSI); Micron Technology, Inc. (MU); Motorola, Inc. (MOT);
Noble Corp. (NE); Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY); Office Depot
Inc. (ODP); Pfizer Inc. (PFE); Phelps Dodge Corp. (PD); Pulte Homes,
Inc. (PHM); Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q);
Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB); Solectron Corp. (SLR); Sovereign Bancorp,
Inc. (SOV); Time Warner, Inc. (TWX); Valero Energy Corp. (VLO); and
Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ).
    \8\ The change proposed by this filing applies to NASD members
that use the Nasdaq Market Center and Brut; in SR-NASD-2005-138,
Nasdaq is proposing to make the same change applicable to non-
members that use Brut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq plans to run the pilot for a period of at least three
months; however, because the authority for this proposal provided by
the Nasdaq Board of Directors runs only through December 31, 2005, the
pilot period covered by this filing is one month. Upon obtaining Board
approval for a longer pilot, which Nasdaq expects to receive in
December 2005, Nasdaq plans to file to extend the pilot through
February 28, 2006.\9\ Nasdaq states that, based on information received
regarding the trading characteristics of the forty stocks included in
the pilot, it would then determine whether to submit a proposed rule
change to extend the pilot further, modify the level of the liquidity
provider credit, and/or offer a credit with respect to additional
stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Telephone conversation between John Yetter, Associate
General Counsel, Exchange, and Michou Nguyen, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, on December 7, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\10\ in general, and with
Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that the proposed
rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system which the NASD operates or controls.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change will institute a
liquidity provider credit available to all market participants that opt
to provide liquidity through Nasdaq or Brut to support executions in
any of forty stocks included in the pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Nasdaq states that written comments were neither solicited nor
received.

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

    The foregoing rule change is subject to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \13\ thereunder
because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the self-regulatory organization. Accordingly, the proposal is
effective upon Commission receipt of the filing. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-137 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-137. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2005-137 and should be
submitted on or before January 9, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E5-7481 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 21, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15888

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  VOLGA-DNEPR J.S. CARGO AIRLINE
                       Date Filed:  August 7, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate two, one-way cargo charter flights from Denver,
Colorado, to Cape Canaveral, Florida, on or about August 25 through
August 27, 2003, using its AN-124 aircraft to transport on the first
flight, one Lockheed Martin Space Systems A203 Atlas III Booster, and,
on the second flight, one Lockheed Martin Space Systems C203 Centaur
III, on behalf of Lockheed Martin Space Systems.  The applicant stated
that Lockheed Martin needs prompt shipment of this cargo to Cape
Canaveral to complete aggressive mission-integration and launch
schedules, that the cargo is too large for transportation on
U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation is not feasible
because of the extreme width, delicate nature and high value of the
cargo, and conditions unsuitable to maintaining system integrity
compliance.

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>         DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Volga-Dnepr served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operations and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                               Action date:  August 21,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 21, 2003, through August
29, 2003

Basis for approval:  We are granting Volga-Dnepr’s request to operate
its two proposed flights from Denver to Cape Canaveral, through August
29, 2003.  We found that its request met all the relevant criteria of 49
U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this type and
that the grant was required in the public interest.  Specifically, we
were persuaded that the need to move the cargo promptly in order to meet
the urgent integration and launch schedules, the fact that the cargo
could not be transported by surface transportation because of its size
and delicate nature, the potential negative impact of delivery delay;
and the unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency
not arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available that could be used to conduct the operations at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority would prevent
unreasonable hardship to the cargo and Lockheed Martin Space Systems.
Finally, we found that the applicant was qualified to perform its
proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions and to the condition that the applicant
must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized
operation.

Action taken by:      Michael W. Reynolds

                                  Acting Assistant Secretary for

                                     Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 53135-53136]
[DOCID:fr08se06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH); Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH) was established to advise the Secretary of Labor on issues
relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal employees.
The purpose of this Federal Register notice is to announce the upcoming
FACOSH meeting. The Agenda items for the meeting will include:
1. Call to Order.
2. Program Updates.
    a. GAO Audit.
    b. SHARE.
    c. Federal Recordkeeping.
    d. Federal Agency Training.
    e. Pandemic Flu Guidance for Federal Agencies.
3. New Business.
4. Adjournment.

DATES: The Council will meet on Thursday, September 28, 2006, from 10
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Council will meet at the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) located at 1100 Wilson
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209. The meeting will be held in MSHA
Conference Rooms 2537G-2540K.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, please
contact Diane Brayden, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-3622, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Individuals with disabilities who
need special accommodations and wish to attend the meeting should
contact Ms. Brayden at the address indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FACOSH meeting is open to the public.

All interested persons are invited to attend the FACOSH meeting at the
time and location listed above. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting
must be prepared to exhibit photo identification and sign-in at MSHA's
front office, located in Suite 2176, for authorization to enter the
meeting area.
    Public Participation: Written data, views, or comments may be
submitted, preferably with 20 copies, to the Office of Federal Agency
Programs at the Department of Labor Frances Perkins Building, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. All such submissions
received by September 21, 2006 will be provided to the Federal Advisory
Council members and included in the meeting record. Anyone wishing to
make an oral presentation should notify the Office of Federal Agency
Programs by the close of business on September 21, 2006. The request
should state the amount of time desired, the capacity in which the
person will appear, and a brief outline of the presentation's content.
Those who request the opportunity to address the Council may be allowed
to speak, as time permits, at the discretion of the Chairperson. An
official record of the meeting will be available for public inspection
at the Office of Federal Agency Programs.

    Authority: Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by Section 1-5 of Executive Order
12196 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2).

     Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of August, 2006.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
 [FR Doc. E6-14875 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TITLE: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Part 61 TITLE OF SUBPART : National Emission Standard for Mercury, Subpart E 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NESHAP SUBPART E  NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARD FOR MERCURY 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Mercury was proposed on December 7, 1971, promulgated on April 6, 1973, and amended on October 14,

1975, and March 19, 1987. These standards apply to the stationary sources which process mercury ore to recover mercury, use mercury chlor alkali cells to produce chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide, and incinerate or dry wastewater treatment plant sludge. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 C. F. R. Part 61, Subpart E.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must conduct a one time performance test to demonstrate compliance. Notification of these tests must be submitted to the Administrator at least 30 days prior to the test, and the results of these tests must be reported to the Administrator. Monitoring of emissions and operations requirements specific to the Mercury NESHAP, Subpart E, provide information on the parameters of operation and compliance with the emission standards. These records are essential in determining compliance, and are required,

in general, of all sources subject to the NESHAP requirements. Any owner or operator subject 2 to the provisions of this part shall maintain records of emission tests, equipment certifications for at least 2 years.

Approximately 142 sources ( 133 wastewater treatment plant sludge incineration and drying plants and 12 mercury cell chlor alkali plants), are currently subject to the standard. The cost of this ICR will be $ 1,456,161.52. All reports are sent to the delegated State or Local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.

In addition, Section 114( a) States that:

. . . the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to ( A) establish and maintain such records, ( B) make such reports,

( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods ( in accordance with such methods at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe), and ( D) sample such emissions, ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical, ( F) submit compliance certifications, and ( G)

provide such other information as he may reasonably require. 3 In the Administrator's judgment, mercury emissions from wastewater treatment plant sludge incineration and drying plants, mercury ore processors and mercury chlor alkali plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 C. F. R. Part 61 Subpart E.

2( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/ USERS OF THE DATA Emissions of mercury are the result of operation of the mercury ore processing facilities,

mercury chlor alkali cells to produce chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide facilities and facilities that incinerate or dry wastewater treatment sludge. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to a standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the standard is being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semi annual reports are use for problem identification as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

The information generated by the monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment and achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, record keeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with these standard as required by the Clean air Act. The information collected from record keeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, an is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court. 4 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart E.

If the standard has not been delegated the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or Local Agency. If a State or Local Agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal Regulation, a copy of the report submitted to the State or Local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal Standard. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 1999, at 64 FR 33284.

3( c) Consultations EPA received one comment on the renewal of this ICR, from Rev. Joseph R. Parrish, Jr.,

St. John's Church in Linden, NJ. The commenter stated that the Mercury NESHAP record keeping and reporting requirements were too minimal given the potential harm of these facilities.

EPA maintains that the record keeping and reporting requirements in the mercury NESHAP are sufficient for ensuring that facilities maintain the standard found in the current regulations. EPA is currently developing mercury Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) standards to address these kinds of sites.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that 5 facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart E or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251,

September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart E, or otherwise pertinent to this request contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mercury ore 6 processing facilities, mercury cell chlor alkali facilities and wastewater sludge incinerators and dryers. They are listed under SIC Code( s) 2819 and 4952. The government is in the process of transitioning to the new North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS). The NAICS code( s) for these industries are 325188 and 22132.

4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( I) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart E.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Notification and application of construction or modification § 61.06 and § 61.07 Notification of anticipated date of initial startup § 61.09( a)( 1)

Notification of actual startup § 61.09( a)( 2)

Notification of physical or operational change which may increase the emission rate § 61.15 Notification of performance tests § 61.13( f) and § 61.14( c)

Perform annual stack emission test § 61.53( a)( 1),( a)( 3), ( b)( 1),( b)( 3),( c)( 1), ( c)( 2),( d)( 1),( d)( 2), ( d)( 4), § 61.12, § 61.55( b)( 1),( b)( 2)

Performance of sludge test and determine mercury emissions § 61.54( a),( c),( d),( e)

Notification of stack emission test § 61.53( a)( 2),( b)( 2) ( c)( 3),( d)( 3)

Certify monitoring device § 61.55( b)( 5) Notification Reports 7 Notification of any parameter excursion that persists for 24 consecutive hours or longer ( Administrator must be notified within 10 days) § 61.55( b)( 6)( i) and ( ii)

Reports Report of stack tests, emission test results and sludge sampling data § 61.53( a)( 3), ( a)( 4),( b)( 3) ( b)( 4),( d)( 4), ( d)( 5) and § 61.54( e),( f)

Optional submission of a plant specific monitoring, record keeping, and recording plan § 61.55( c)

Semi annual reports of parameter excursions § 61.55( b)( 7), ( b)( 8)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Maintain records of emission test results and sludge sampling data for a minimum of two years. § 61.53( a)( 5), ( b)( 5),( d)( 6) and § 61.54( g)

Maintain records of monitoring data, monitoring system calibration checks, and the occurrence and duration of periods where the monitoring system is malfunctioning or inoperative. Records shall be retained for at least two years. § 61.14( f)

Maintain records for two years § 61.55( d)( 2)

Monitor and record appropriate process or control device parameters once each hour § 61.55( b)( 4)

Maintain daily records of all leaks or spills of mercury § 61.55( d)( 1)

Records are required to be retained for 2 Years. 8 ii. Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate control device Perform initial performance test, using Method 101 Appendix B for mercury ore processing facilities, Method 102 for mercury chlor alkali plants with hydrogen streams, Method 101 Appendix B for mercury chlor alkali plants with cell room ventilation systems and Method 101A in appendix B for sludge incineration and drying plants, or the alternative test Method 105 of appendix B, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage,

and distribution of the information required under 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart E: 9 Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) database.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AIRS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AIRS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AIRS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years. 10 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The record keeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this specific subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutant. The impact on small businesses was accounted for in the regulation development. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. Even though, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown on Table 2.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.

Responses to this information collection are mandatory. The 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.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping 11 and reporting requirements is estimated at 26,504 person hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses labor rates of $ 54.94 . These rates are from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1999, Table 10: Employment Costs for Private Industry by Occupational and Industry Group. The rates are from column 1: Total compensation.

The wage rates have been loaded by adding 110% overhead.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor costs. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs This section is not applicable because there is no continuous emissions monitoring associated with this NESHAP.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information.

Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AIRS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Federal Government cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to 12 be $ 31,776.00. This cost is based on an average wage of a ( GS 10 step 1 employee rate,

$ 16.52 hr + 110% overhead = $ 34.69; there is no travel associated with compliance activities.

Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Agency Burden.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The number of existing sources subject to 40 C. F. R. Part 61 Subpart E is 142. There are no new sources expected to be subject to 40 C. F. R. Part 61 Subpart E. The number of total respondents is 142. This is the number of existing sources plus the number of sources anticipated in one year. The total annual responses is 24. This number is calculated from the number of existing mercury chlor alkali cell facilities, multiplied by the semiannual reports. The total annual labor costs are $ 1,456,161.52. There are no annual capital costs and O& M costs to the regulated entity because there is no continuous emissions monitoring associated with this NESHAP. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Industry Burden.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables Please refer to Tables 1 and 2 attached.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden Recent studies conducted by the Agency, as well as information provided by the Chlorine Institute, have provided the new number of sources subject to this NESHAP. Based on recent studies, EPA does not expect that additional sources will become subject to these requirements in the next three years.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 13 includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 401 M St., S. W., Washington, D. C.

20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 0113.07 and OMB control number 2060 0097 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.