[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6657-6659]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1091; FRL-8525-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Kentucky:
Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise Facility State Implementation Plan
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a source specific State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on October 19, 2007, by
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ). The purpose of the SIP
revision is to remove from the Kentucky State Implementation Plan a
previous source-specific revision approved by EPA on August 25, 1989,
and relating to the redistribution of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Paradise Steam
Plant located in Muhlenburg County, Kentucky. This proposal includes
SO2 limits that are more stringent than the current SIP-
approved statewide SO2 limits for electric generating units
(EGUs). Consistent with Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR)
approved into the SIP, affected facilities located in Muhlenberg County
are subject to an SO2 emission limit of 3.1 pounds per
million British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBTU). The 3.1 lbs/mmBTU limit was
approved by EPA in June 24, 1983, as part of Kentucky's control
strategy for attaining and maintaining the primary and secondary
SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in
Muhlenberg County. This SIP revision proposes a limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU
for all three units with limited bypass emissions of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU for
scrubber maintenance on Unit 3.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2007-1091,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1091,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-1091.'' 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 through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. 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 electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

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

in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9074. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
II. What is the Background for EPA's Proposed Action?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve a source-specific SIP revision
submitted by KDAQ on October 19, 2007. The purpose of the SIP revision
is to change and update the Kentucky SIP with regard to applicable
SO2 emissions limits for the TVA Paradise Plant located in
Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The new proposed limits are 1.2 lbs/mmBTU
for all three units with limited bypass emissions of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU
during scrubber maintenance on Unit 3. A previous source-specific SIP
revision was approved by EPA on August 25, 1989 (54 FR 35326). The
proposed change is consistent with Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter
224.10-100, and associated KAR including 401 KAR 61:015, Appendix B.
These KAR, which are SIP-approved, allow for an SO2 emission
limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU at the TVA Paradise facility. The 3.1 lbs/mmBTU
limit described in 401 KAR 61:015 was approved by EPA on June 24, 1983
(48

FR 28988) as part of Kentucky's control strategy for attaining and
maintaining the primary SO2 NAAQS in Muhlenberg County. The
current source specific revision proposes SO2 limits for TVA
Paradise that are more stringent than those approved in August 25,
1989, however, 401 KAR 61:015 would be the backstop (i.e., emissions
could not exceed those allowed pursuant to 401 KAR 61:015).

II. What Is the Background for EPA's Proposed Action?

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants
considered to be harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA
established two types of NAAQS: Primary and secondary NAAQS. Primary
NAAQS are set in order to protect public health, including the health
of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
Secondary NAAQS are set in order to protect public welfare, including
protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops,
vegetation, and buildings. EPA has established primary and secondary
NAAQS for the criteria pollutant SO2. Muhlenberg County,
Kentucky, the location of the TVA Paradise facility, is currently
designated as attainment for the primary and secondary SO2
NAAQS, as well as all of the other NAAQS.
    In 1978, EPA designated Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, as
nonattainment for primary and secondary SO2 NAAQS (43 FR
8962, March 3, 1978). In 1979 Kentucky submitted a SIP revision
including its SO2 control strategy, which provided for
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. As part of that
submittal, the control strategy used dispersion modeling (mathematical
formulations to characterize the atmospheric processes that disperse a
pollutant emitted by a source) to show that more stringent SO2
emission limits at several sources, including the TVA Paradise
facility, would be adequate to insure attainment of both the primary
and secondary SO2 NAAQS.
    Kentucky's 1979 SO2 control strategy SIP submittal
included state regulations establishing SO2 emissions limits
for steam generating plants in every county. Specifically, 401 KAR
61:015, sets the SO2 limit for each unit within a county
depending on the type of fuel used by the unit and the rated heat input
capacity for the specific unit. For facilities with a maximum rated
heat input capacity of 21,000 BTU or more, like the TVA Paradise
facility, the applicable SO2 limit, pursuant to 401 KAR
61:015, is 3.1 lbs/mmBTU on a 24-hour average. In addition to 401 KAR
61:015, the 1979 control strategy submittal also included a compliance
schedule for TVA Paradise to achieve the 3.1 lb/mmBTU limit at each
unit by September 1, 1982. Pursuant to the terms of a federal private
party consent decree (Tennessee Thoracic Society v. Freeman, Case No.
77-3286, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee)
negotiated in 1979 and signed in December 1980, the TVA Paradise
facility was allowed to meet a limit of 5.2 lbs/mmBTU limit at Unit 3
until December 1, 1983, at which time the facility was required to meet
the limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU, pursuant to 401 KAR 61.015.
    On October 31, 1980, EPA took final action to approve Kentucky's
SO2 control strategy SIP, including approval of the 3.1 lb/
mmBTU SO2 limit established by 401 KAR 61:015 (45 FR 72153).
Subsequently, on June 24, 1983, EPA approved a request by Kentucky to
redesignate Muhlenberg County to attainment for the primary
SO2 NAAQS (48 FR 28988).
    In 1987, TVA requested a redistribution of allowable SO2
emissions at the Paradise facility such that each of its three units
would have a specific limit that when considered together, would be
equivalent to 3.1 lbs/mmBTU averaged over a 24-hour period (as required
by the KAR). The TVA Paradise facility has two units (Units 1 and 2)
with an electric generating capacity of approximately 704 megawatts
(MW) each, and a third unit (Unit 3) with an electric generating
capacity of approximately 1150 MW. The 1987 submittal included an
equivalency demonstration that explained how the unit-specific limits
were equivalent to the KAR requirement of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU. As described
in the 1987 submittal, for Units 1 and 2, the SO2 the
emission limit would be 1.2 lbs/mmBTU, with a maximum heat input of
6,305 mmBTU/hour, and for Unit 3, the SO2 emission limit
would be 5.4 lbs/mmBTU, with a maximum heat input of 10,390 mmBTU/hour.
Kentucky's 1987 submittal also contained a final state operating permit
issued to TVA for the Paradise facility (permit number 0-87-012) which
included these new limits.
    On August 25, 1989, EPA took final action to approve the source-
specific SIP revision for TVA Paradise into the Kentucky SIP (54 FR
35326). EPA's approval of that revision was based on EPA's finding that
the SO2 limits in addition to the heat input rates, made the
redistribution equivalent to the SIP-approved 3.1 lbs/mmBTU limit.
TVA's 1987 operating permit included the SO2 limits
described in the 1989 SIP revision. The actions summarized above,
including the 1989 final action and accompanying equivalency
determination are available in the Docket for the current proposed
action.
    In 1998, EPA approved Kentucky's request to redesignate Muhlenberg
County as attainment for the secondary SO2 NAAQS (63 FR
44143, August 18, 1998). Dispersion modeling performed by EPA and
Kentucky demonstrated that the existing measures approved in the SIP
(including the TVA Paradise source-specific SO2 emissions
distribution) were adequate to protect the secondary SO2
NAAQS.
    On October 19, 2007, Kentucky submitted to EPA a source-specific
SIP revision requesting that the 1989 source-specific redistribution of
SO2 emission limits for TVA Paradise be revised to account
for new control technology at the facility. Kentucky proposed that the
TVA Paradise facility be subject to specific limits discussed below
which are more stringent than the backstop of Kentucky's SIP-approved
KAR, requiring a 3.1 lbs/mmBTU. The rationale for the 1989
redistribution was the lack of control measures (a scrubber) on Unit 3.
TVA has now installed a wet scrubber on Unit 3, and as a result, the
1989 redistribution is no longer necessary for the facility to comply
with the SIP-approved 401 KAR 61:015. At this time, Units 1 and 2 are
equipped with Venturi-type limestone slurry flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) scrubbers, and Unit 3 is equipped with an electrostatic
precipitator and a wet limestone FGD scrubber. The facility is now able
to meet (and exceed) the requirements of 401 KAR 61:015 without a unit-
specific redistribution.
    As described by Kentucky in the October 2007 SIP submittal, due to
the installation of control technology at the facility, it is now
possible for the Paradise facility to meet not only the current KAR,
but even further control the facility to meet a lower limit. Therefore,
Kentucky proposed that the facility continue to meet an SO2
emissions limit of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU for Units 1 and 2, and also meet a
limit of 1.2 lb/mmBTU on Unit 3 when the scrubber is operating. Because
Unit 3 has a ``single-module'' scrubber which cannot be operated during
maintenance events, Kentucky proposed that the facility meet the SIP-
approved KAR limit of 3.1 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average during the
limited times when the scrubber is bypassed for maintenance. Provisions
limiting the number of hours when the scrubber can be by-passed are
conditioned in the most recent title V operating permit issued on
November 1, 2007, and shall

not exceed 720 hours in any 12-month period. Kentucky's October 2007
source-specific SIP revision therefore proposes SO2 limits
for the Paradise facility that are more stringent than the SIP-approved
KAR. Kentucky's SIP submittal includes technical support information
comparing the limits required by KAR with the current proposed source-
specific revision. This information is available in the Docket for this
proposed action. The new limits will be included in a CAA title V
operating permit.
    Consistent with Section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve
this revision to the Kentucky SIP. The revision would supersede the
1989 source-specific SIP revision for the TVA Paradise facility and
subject the facility to the specific SO2 emission limits
discussed above.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve a source-specific SIP revision
submitted by KDAQ in October 2007 regarding the SO2 emission
limits for the three units at the TVA Paradise Facility. This proposal
would supersede the 1989 source-specific SIP revision and subject TVA
Paradise to emission limits of 1.2 lbs/mmBTU at Units 1, 2, and 3,
except that Unit 3 may meet the limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU that is
established in 401 KAR 61:015 during the limited times when the Unit 3
scrubber is bypassed for maintenance. Now that TVA has installed the
control technology necessary to achieve the KAR limit of 3.1 lbs/mmBTU
at all three units of the Paradise facility, the previous
redistribution is no longer necessary. This proposed revision is
consistent with Section 110 of the CAA because it will continue to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves Kentucky law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under Kentucky law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by Kentucky law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a Kentucky rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
Commonwealth to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 24, 2008
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E8-2089 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21048]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Securities Act Rule 477, OMB Control No. 3235-0550, SEC File No.
270-493.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 477 (17 CFR 230.477) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) sets forth procedures for withdrawing a
registration statement, an amendment to a registration statement, or
any exhibits thereto. The rule provides that if a registrant intends to
rely on the registered-to-private safe harbor contained in Securities
Act Rule 155, the registrant must affirmatively state in the withdrawal
application that it plans to undertake a subsequent private offering of
its securities. Without this statement, the Commission would not be
able to monitor a company's reliance on, and compliance with,
Securities Act Rule 155(c). The likely respondents will be companies.
We estimate that approximately 300 issuers will file Securities Act
Rule 477 submissions annually at an estimated one-hour per response for
a total annual burden of approximately 300 hours. We estimate that 100%
of the reporting burden is prepared by the issuer.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 16, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9269 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 138)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39586-39587]
[DOCID:fr19jy07-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772; FRL-8439-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Specifically, the revisions involve Continental Nitrogen & Resource
Corporation (Continental Nitrogen) of Dakota County, Minnesota
submitted on April 23, 2007. The emission limits for the Continental
Nitrogen steam boilers have been removed. Continental Nitrogen has
physically disconnected its three boilers. The boilers cannot operate,
thus there are no emissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0772, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only

accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 5, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-13776 Filed 7-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Protected Offer C on Exchange 5 displaying 100 shares at
$10.03.
    Under this Example 10, the Matching System will utilize the above
market snapshot in security XYZ to transition the remaining unexecuted
resting orders on the SNAP CHX book to the CHX book, pursuant to
proposed Article 18, Rule 1(b)(5)(A), as follows:
     Buy Order A would post to the CHX book at $10.00, with the
1,000 displayed shares ranked, pursuant to proposed Article 20, Rule
8(b)(1)(A), and the 4,000 undisplayed reserved shares ranked, pursuant
to proposed Article 20, Rule 8(b)(1)(B).
     Sell Order A would post to the CHX book at $10.03 and
ranked, pursuant to proposed Article 20, Rule 8(b)(1)(A).
     Buy Order D would be cancelled as limit orders marked
Start SNAP are never eligible for the Open Trading State.
    The Matching System will then process the FIFO Queue, pursuant to
proposed Article 18, Rule 1(b)(5)(B), as follows:
     Cancel Buy Order B message would have no effect because
Buy Order B was fully executed during the stage three Satisfaction
Period.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See supra Example 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cross Order A would be cancelled because execution at the
crossing price of $10.01 would result in an impermissible trade-through
of Protected Bid B at $10.02, in violation of Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS.
     Buy Order G would execute against 100 shares of Sell Order
A at $10.03, leaving Sell Order A with 100 shares at $10.03.
     Sell Order F would be cancelled pursuant to its Post Only
designation because it would impermissible lock the NBO at $10.02 and
it is not routable.
     Buy Order H would be placed in the SNAP AOO Queue, since
it was received after the SNAP Order Acceptance Period and is, thus,
eligible for the next SNAP Cycle that is initiated.
     Buy Order I would execute against the remaining 100 shares
of Sell Order A at $10.03.
    Thus, the only remaining order on the CHX book is Buy Order A for
5,000 shares (i.e., 1,000 displayed and 4,000 undisplayed) at $10.00.
    Immediately after the FIFO Queue has been processed, pursuant to
proposed Article 18, Rule 1(b)(5)(C), the Exchange will notify the
market that the SNAP has concluded; publish its Protected Bid at $10.00
for 1,000 shares; and begin dissemination of information through the
CHX Book Feed, including information regarding the displayable portions
of all orders posted to the CHX book (i.e., 1,000 displayed shares of
Buy Order A).
Section Seven: Market Maker Requirements
    The Exchange does not propose to include any market making
requirements with regards to SNAP. Pursuant to current Article 16, Rule
8, Participant Market Makers in a security are required to maintain
two-sided quotes in the security and to meet certain pricing
obligations concerning such quotes, during the regular trading session.
As such, the current requirements would only be applicable during the
Open Trading State, which is the only time during the regular trading
session when quotes would be displayed and automatically executable.
Thus, the current requirements are inapplicable to SNAP Cycles because
quotes are never displayed and never automatically executable during a
SNAP Cycle. Moreover, in light of the substantial size and aggressive
pricing requirements to initiate a SNAP Cycle, the Exchange does not
believe it appropriate, at this time, to propose additional
requirements for Participant Market Makers with regards to SNAP.
    Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Article 16, Rule 8(a) to
provide that the current two-sided quote and pricing obligations for
Participant Market Makers only apply during the Open Trading State.
Incidentally, the Exchange proposes to amend an obsolete reference to
``member'' with the more accurate ``Participant,'' under paragraph
(a)(1).
Section Eight: Operative Date
    In the event the proposed rule change is approved by the SEC, the
Exchange proposes to make the proposed rule change operative pursuant
to two weeks' notice by the Exchange to its Participants via Regulatory
Notice. Prior to the operative date, the Exchange will ensure that
policies and procedures are in place to allow Exchange operations
personnel to effectively monitor the use of the SNAP functionality. The
Exchange will also ensure that any special notices required pursuant to
the proposed rule change will be made to Participants, including
notices regarding securities that will not be eligible for SNAP.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\93\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\94\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \94\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that SNAP will further the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act precisely because it will address a market
need, as noted by Chair White, for a trading service that deemphasizes
speed as a key to trading success in order to further serve the
interests of investors,\95\ which will operate in compliance with
Regulation NMS and Rule 201 of Regulation SHO or applicable exemptive
relief.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See supra note 4.
    \96\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, market participants seeking to trade securities in
bulk have largely avoided exchanges due to a lack of trading services
that sufficiently minimize the downside of exposing large orders to the
market, which may include unfavorable market activity in response to
the posting of a large displayed order and insufficient displayed
liquidity, both of which result in inadequate price discovery for bulk
orders. It is a vicious cycle: market participants seeking to execute
bulk orders in whole at marketable or even hypermarketable prices are
frequently unable to find sufficient liquidity on exchanges, whereas
market participants wishing to provide bulk liquidity to the market are
unwilling to display such orders on an exchange due to the inevitable
and unfavorable market activity to follow.
    The Exchange believes that the key to bulk trading success on an
exchange is a functionality that momentarily consolidates trading
interest in a security in one place, while automated trading in the
security continues elsewhere in the national market system, and to
permit such orders to interact on a fully-hidden book based on a set of
carefully-designed rules that minimize the downside of exposing large
orders to the market. The Exchange submits that SNAP is precisely such
a functionality because it would enhance market liquidity and the price
discovery process, while

minimizing information leakage and speed advantages.
    The Exchange believes that incentivizing market participants to
initiate and respond to SNAPs would remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market because it would enhance market
liquidity. In order to incentivize market participants to initiate SNAP
Cycles, upon initiation of a SNAP Cycle, the Exchange will notify the
market that a SNAP Cycle has been initiated, which gives the Start SNAP
order sender the benefit of notifying the market of its bulk trading
interest, without giving away crucial details, such as exact price,
size or side of the Start SNAP order, that could disadvantage the Start
SNAP order sender.\97\ In turn, market participants will be
incentivized to respond to SNAP Cycles knowing that a SNAP Cycle will
only be initiated by a valid marketable or hypermarketable Start SNAP
order that meets a substantial minimum size requirement.\98\ Also,
market participants will also know that SNAP AOOs that could
participate in a SNAP Cycle will also be ranked on the SNAP CHX book,
all of which must meet a substantial minimum size requirement, thereby
potentially increasing the size of interest on the SNAP CHX book.\99\
Moreover, SNAP will further incentivize market participants to
participate in SNAP Cycles by prohibiting order cancellations during a
SNAP Cycle, which will assure potential order senders that the Start
SNAP order that initiated the SNAP Cycle, as well as any other orders
participating in the instant SNAP Cycle, will not be cancelled, and has
the additional effect of encouraging order senders to submit bona fide
SNAP Eligible Orders.\100\ In light of all of these characteristics,
the market will be on notice that aggressively priced interest of a
substantial size is guaranteed to exist at CHX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(1)(A).
    \98\ See proposed CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(A).
    \99\ See proposed CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(3).
    \100\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes that incentivizing market
participants to initiate and respond to SNAPs would remove impediments
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market because it would
enhance the price discovery process. That is, SNAP would enhance the
price discovery process through enhanced market liquidity.
Specifically, the concentration of liquidity at CHX combined with the
aggressive pricing requirement of the Start SNAP order will maximize
the probability of overlap of orders at one or more price points. If
overlap exists, a SNAP Price will be determined pursuant to a ruled-
based algorithm that balances maximum execution size with an execution
price that accurately reflects market demand.\101\ As such, SNAP
Eligible Order senders can submit aggressively priced orders knowing
that the SNAP Price will be equitable, which enhances the price
discovery process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See proposed CHX Article 1, Rule 1(rr); see also supra
Section 6, Example 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that certain aspects of SNAP designed
to minimize information leakage concerning orders participating in a
SNAP Cycle would promote just and equitable principles of trade and
remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market
because such measures would minimize the probability of unfavorable
market activity in response to a SNAP that could disadvantage orders
participating in a SNAP Cycle and, in particular, the Start SNAP order.
Specifically, this would be achieved by requiring the SNAP CHX book to
be fully-hidden and market data dissemination to be suspended during
the SNAP Cycle (except for SNAP execution reports to the relevant SIP
and order senders).\102\ Also, since orders are only executed within
the Matching System during the stage four Order Matching Period, market
participants will be prevented from ``pinging'' the SNAP CHX book in an
attempt to glean the contents of the book.\103\ Moreover, a Start SNAP
order sender has the option to place a minimum SNAP execution size
condition equal to the minimum size requirement to initiate a SNAP
Cycle, which prevents the market from being able to deduce crucial
information concerning the Start SNAP order without maximizing the
probability of substantial executions.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(a) and (b)(1).
    \103\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(4).
    \104\ See proposed CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the fact that SNAP would never be
scheduled and that the length of the SNAP Order Acceptance Period would
be randomized would promote just and equitable principles of trade and
remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market
because such aspects deemphasize speed as a key for trading success.
For example, by randomizing key aspects of the SNAP Cycle, market
participants will not be able to utilize speed advantages to ascertain
precisely when a SNAP Cycle will be initiated and when certain events
during a SNAP Cycle will begin or end. That is, since SNAP Cycles are
never scheduled, market participants, other than the Start SNAP order
sender, will never know precisely when a SNAP Cycle will be
initiated.\105\ Similarly, since the stage two SNAP Order Acceptance
Period is randomized, within a time frame of 475 to 525 milliseconds,
market participants will never be able to know exactly when the SNAP
Order Acceptance Period will end.\106\ At the same time, the Exchange
believes that 475 to 525 milliseconds is sufficient time for virtually
all order senders to submit SNAP Eligible Orders in response to a SNAP
Cycle notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(a).
    \106\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the special order ranking plan
and new order modifiers for SNAP promote just and equitable principles
of trade and remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market because such aspects also deemphasize speed as a key
for trading success. Specifically, SNAP Eligible Orders received in
response to a SNAP Cycle notification will be subordinated in rank on
the SNAP CHX book to all precedent SNAP Eligible Orders.\107\ Thus,
market participants submitting orders in response to a notice of a SNAP
Cycle will never be able to utilize speed advantages to achieve
priority over precedent resting SNAP Eligible Orders. Moreover, SNAP
AOOs further minimize speed advantages by permitting order senders to
submit SNAP AOOs from as early as the beginning of the early
session,\108\ well before a SNAP Cycle could be initiated.\109\ Thus,
an order sender could submit a SNAP AOO before a SNAP Cycle is
initiated knowing that that order will never lose priority to orders
received during a subsequent SNAP Order Acceptance Period. Similarly,
SNAP AOO--Pegged further minimize speed advantages by obviating the
need to directly consume and process market data at the crucial moment
when the order is submitted because such orders will be priced at the
last possible moment, after the end of the SNAP Order Acceptance
Period, by the Exchange's systems, which will utilize the most recent
market data.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See proposed CHX Article 20, Rule 8(b)(3).
    \108\ See supra note 26.
    \109\ See proposed CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(3).
    \110\ See proposed CHX Article 1, Rule 2(h)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the SEC highlighted the importance of
maintaining an appropriate balance between competition among markets

and competition among orders.\111\ Specifically, the SEC stated,
``vigorous competition among markets promotes more efficient and
innovative trading services, while integrated competition among orders
promotes more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \112\ The SEC noted, however, the difficulty
in striking that balance in that ``competition among multiple markets
trading the same stock can detract from the most vigorous competition
among orders in an individual stock, thereby impeding efficient price
discovery for orders of all sizes.'' \113\ The Exchange believes that
SNAP is consistent with these concepts because it is an innovative
functionality that promotes competition among markets by enhancing the
price discovery process for orders of all sizes, thereby also promoting
competition among orders. As such, the Exchange believes that SNAP
would further the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) the Act precisely
because it would operate consistently with Regulation NMS \114\ and
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO or applicable exemptive relief.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR
37496 (June 29, 2005) (``NMS Release'').
    \112\ Id.
    \113\ Id.
    \114\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \115\ See supra note 7; 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, SNAP will be compliant with the Order Protection Rule
of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.\116\ SNAP executions during the stage
four Order Matching Period will only occur after the routing of one or
more ISOs to execute against the Protected Quotations of external
markets priced better than the SNAP Price.\117\ In addition, where
there are additional orders resting on the SNAP CHX book at the SNAP
Price that could not be executed within the Matching System during the
stage four Order Matching Period, but could be executed against
Protected Quotations of external markets at the SNAP Price, the
Exchange will route those orders to execute against such Protected
Quotations, even though such routing is not required by Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS.\118\ Thus, SNAP routing is compliant with Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS because executions at the SNAP Price will never
impermissibly trade-through better priced Protected Quotations of
external markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Since the Exchange will remove its Protected Quotations in
the subject security, if any, upon the initiation of a SNAP Cycle
and will not disseminate Protected Quotations in the subject
security until the end of the SNAP Cycle, SNAP does not implicate
any Rule 610 of Regulation NMS issues.
    \117\ See proposed CHX Article 19, Rule 3(a)(4).
    \118\ See proposed CHX Article 19, Rule 3(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed queuing of cross orders on the FIFO
Queue received during a SNAP Cycle for later processing during the
stage five Transition to the Open Trading State,\119\ the Exchange
believes that the queuing of cross orders marked Qualified Contingent
Transaction (``QCT'') during a SNAP Cycle will have no material impact
on its ability to meet all of the requirements for the QCT
exemption.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(C)(iv).
    \120\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31,
2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006) (``Order Granting an
Exemption for Qualified Contingent Trades From Rule 611(a) of
Regulation NMS Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934''); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4, 2008), 73
FR 19271 (April 4, 2008) [sic] (``Order Modifying the Exemption for
Qualified Contingent Trades From Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS Under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934''); see also Article 1, Rule
2(b)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC defines ``QCT'' as a transaction consisting of two or more
component orders, executed as agent or principal, where:
    (1) At least one component order is in an NMS stock;
    (2) all components are effected with a product or price contingency
that either has been agreed to by the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent;
    (3) the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution
of all other components at or near the same time;
    (4) the specific relationship between the component orders (e.g.,
the spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined at
the time the contingent order is placed;
    (5) the component orders bear a derivative relationship to one
another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or
involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to
merge that have been announced or since cancelled; and
    (6) the Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged (without
regard to any prior existing position) as a result of the other
components of the contingent trade.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed queuing of QCTs on the FIFO Queue only implicates the
QCT timing requirement because the proposed queuing would only impact
the timing of the QCT execution. However, the Exchange believes that
the momentary delay resulting from the proposed queuing would be
immaterial because of the fact that the execution of the different
components that comprise QCTs usually take many seconds, if not
minutes, to accomplish. This is because the packaging of QCTs is
inherently a manual process that frequently involves numerous broker-
dealers representing several counter-parties with two or more component
orders to be executed on two or more venues. In fact, this reality is
recognized by the QCT exemption itself through the timing requirement
of ``at or near the same time,'' which does not note a specific time
requirement.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See id (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SNAP is also consistent with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO or
applicable exemptive relief.\123\ Specifically, SNAP Eligible Orders
marked Sell Short in a covered security subject to the short sale price
test restriction will never be permitted to execute at prices at or
below the NBB ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant to
proposed Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(E). For SNAP Eligible Orders marked
Sell Short with a limit price at one minimum price increment above the
NBB ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant to proposed
Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(E) or higher, such orders would simply be
ranked on the SNAP CHX book at its limit price. However, for SNAP
Eligible Orders marked Sell Short with a limit price at or below the
NBB ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant to proposed
Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(E), the Matching System would reprice such
orders to one minimum price increment above that NBB and rank such
orders on the SNAP CHX book at the new higher price.\124\ Thus, if the
SNAP Price is ultimately determined to be at or below the NBB
ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant to proposed Article
18, Rule 1(b)(2)(E), during a short sale price test restriction, this
ranking methodology would ensure that SNAP Eligible Orders marked Sell
Short would not participate in the SNAP execution, as such orders would
never have an executable price lower than one minimum price increment
above the NBB ascertained from the market snapshot taken pursuant to
proposed Article 18, Rule 1(b)(2)(E).\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See supra note 7.
    \124\ See proposed CHX Article 20, Rule 8(d)(4)(B)(i).
    \125\ See proposed CHX Article 18, Rule 1(b)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that any burden on competition is necessary and

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act because SNAP is an initiative that seeks to deemphasize speed as a
key to trading success in order to further serve the interests of
investors, as recently noted by Chair White, and thereby removes
impediments and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See supra note 4; see also supra Statutory Basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-CHX-2015-03 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-CHX-2015-03. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2015-03,
and should be submitted on or before July 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16651 Filed 7-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18090-18091]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1116]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The
modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, 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. The BFE changes are in accordance
with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer   Effective date of  modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York: Suffolk.................  Town of Southampton    March 4, 2010; March  The Honorable Anna Throne- August 19, 2010................       365342
                                     (09-02-1473P).         11, 2010;             Holst, Southampton Town
                                                            Southampton Press.    Board Supervisor, 116
                                                                                Hampton Road,
                                                                                Southampton, NY 11968.
Pennsylvania: York................  Township of Dover (09- March 5, 2010; March  Mr. Curtis Kann,           February 26, 2010..............       420920
                                     03-1919P).             12, 2010; York        Chairperson, Township of
                                                            Daily Record.         Dover Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 2480 West
                                                                                Canal Road, Dover, PA
                                                                                17315.
Texas:
    Collin........................  City of Allen (09-06-  November 6, 2009;     The Honorable Stephen      October 28, 2009...............       480131
                                     3028P).                November 13, 2009;    Terrell, Mayor, City of
                                                            McKinney Courier-     Allen, 305 Century
                                                            Gazette.              Parkway, Allen, TX 75013.
    Collin........................  City of McKinney (09-  November 6, 2009;     The Honorable Brian        October 28, 2009...............       480135
                                     06-3028P).             November 13, 2009;    Loughmiller, Mayor, City
                                                            McKinney Courier-     of McKinney, 222 North
                                                            Gazette.              Tennessee Street, P.O.
                                                                                Box 517, McKinney, TX
                                                                                75069.
    Travis........................  City of Austin (09-06- March 10, 2010;       The Honorable Lee          July 15, 2010..................       480624
                                     3398P).                March 17, 2010;       Leffingwell, Mayor, City
                                                            Austin American-      of Austin, P.O. Box
                                                            Statesman.            1088, Austin, TX 78767.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: March 24, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-8047 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 43236]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15394]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2017-0380; FRL-10012-50-OMS]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Generic
Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service
Delivery (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), Generic Clearance for
the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (EPA
ICR Number 2434.99, OMB Control Number 2010-0042) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public
comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as
described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through March 31, 2021. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OEI-2017-0380, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamia Franklin, Office of Mission
Support, Regulatory Support Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code 2822T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The information collection activity provides a means to
garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient,
timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to
improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback includes information
that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management. The solicitation of feedback will target areas
such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information,
courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with
service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts
to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If
this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable. The Agency
will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance
if: The collections are voluntary; the collections are low burden for
respondents and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal
Government; the collections are noncontroversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies; the collection is targeted
to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience
with the program or may have experience with the program in the near
future; personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to
the extent necessary and is not retained; information gathered will be
used only internally for general service improvement and program
management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the
agency; information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; information
gathered will yield qualitative information.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals and Households;
Businesses and Organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 180,000 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once per request.
    Total estimated burden: 45,000 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: There are no annualized capital or operation
& maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 15,000 hours annually
in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This increase in hours are due to the
increase in the use of surveys by the Agency.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-15394 Filed 7-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P