[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41439-41443]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16553]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0888; FRL-9913-59-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from Michigan and Wisconsin while taking final action to
approve some elements and disapprove other elements of SIP submissions
from Illinois and Minnesota regarding the infrastructure requirements
of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 Pb NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of
each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the CAA. Illinois and Minnesota already
administer federally promulgated regulations that address the final
disapprovals described in today's rulemaking. Therefore, these two
states are not obligated to submit new or additional regulations to
EPA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0888. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Andy Chang at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rulemaking associated with this
final action was published on May 13, 2014, and EPA received two
comment letters during the comment period, which ended on June 12,
2014. One of the letters supported EPA's proposed actions, and the
concerns raised in the other letter, as well as EPA's response, will be
addressed in this final action.
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged
as follows:

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
    A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
    B. Why did the states make these SIP submissions?
    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the following states in
EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA);
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR). The states submitted their 2008 Pb NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: Illinois--December 31,
2012; Michigan--April 3, 2012, and supplemented on August 9, 2013, and
September 19, 2013; Minnesota--June 19, 2012; and, Wisconsin--July 26,
2012.

B. Why did the states make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed
for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or
certifications that their existing SIPs for Pb and ozone already meet
those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5\1\ NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011,
``Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).
The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and primarily
address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To the extent that the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program is comprehensive and non-NAAQS
specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 1997 ozone
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be included in the appropriate
sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin that address the infrastructure requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the

submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list
of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    As described in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR
27241), this rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are
not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM'');
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or
``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(collectively referred to as ``director's discretion''); and, (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007)
(``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of
these substantive areas in separate rulemaking. Additionally, the
history, interpretation, and rationale related to infrastructure SIP
requirements can be found in our May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled,
``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the
section, ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at
27242-27245).

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect
to each state's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS closed on June 12, 2014. EPA received two comment
letters, one of which was in support of our proposed actions. A
synopsis of the adverse comments contained in the other letter, as well
as EPA's response, is discussed below.
    Comment: The commenter noted that EPA did not address Wisconsin's
compliance with the requirements to incorporate PM2.5
increments \2\ into its SIP. The commenter asserted that because
Wisconsin has failed to incorporate the increments, EPA needs to
disapprove the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD sub-element for the
PM2.5 increments, and begin a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) clock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The PM2.5 increments and associated
implementation rules in question arise from EPA's October 20, 2010,
final rule for the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking, we stated
that we were not taking action on Wisconsin's satisfaction of the
applicable PSD requirements, e.g., incorporating the PM2.5
increments found in section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), or
section 110(a)(2)(J) (see 79 FR 27241 at 27246). Instead, EPA stated
that it would address Wisconsin's compliance with these requirements in
a separate rulemaking. In other words, this comment is not germane to
today's rulemaking.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in our May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking
and in the above response to a public comment, EPA is taking final
action to approve, as proposed, most elements of submissions from
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin certifying that their
current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure
elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are
also taking final action to disapprove some elements of submissions
from Illinois and Minnesota related to each state's PSD program. As
described in the proposed rulemaking, both of these states already
administer Federally promulgated PSD regulations through delegation,
and therefore, no practical effect is associated with today's final
disapproval of those elements (see 79 FR 27241 at 27256-27257).
    To clarify, EPA is taking final action to disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect
to certain PSD requirements including: (i) Provisions that adequate
address the 2008 Pb NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone consistent with
the ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of
the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline''; (iii)
the explicit identification of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
NOX as PM2.5 precursors (and the significant
emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2 and
NOX as its precursors), and the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 \3\ condensables, consistent with
the requirements of the final rule on the ``Implementation of the New
Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)''; (iv) the PM2.5 increments
and associated implementation rules consistent with the final rule on
the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)''; and, (v) permitting of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also taking final action to disapprove the infrastructure
SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate
pollution abatement. Specifically, this section requires states with
PSD programs have provisions requiring a new or modified source to
notify neighboring states of the potential impacts from the source,
consistent with the requirements of section 126(a).
    However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA
because Federally promulgated rules, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in
effect in each of these states. EPA has delegated the authority to
Illinois and Minnesota to administer these rules, which include
provisions related to PSD and interstate pollution abatement. This

final disapproval for Illinois and Minnesota for these infrastructure
SIP requirements will not result in sanctions under section 179(a), nor
will it obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of final
action if the states do not submit revisions to their PSD SIPs
addressing these deficiencies. Instead, Illinois and Minnesota are
already subject to the Federally promulgated PSD regulations, and both
states administer these regulations via EPA's delegated authority.
    EPA's final actions for each state's satisfaction of infrastructure
SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are contained in the
table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Element                       IL                  MI                  MN                  WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other     A                   A                   A                   A
 control measures.
(B): Ambient air quality           A                   A                   A                   A
 monitoring and data system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures  A                   A                   A                   A
(C)2: PSD program for Pb.........  D,*                 A                   D,*                 NA
(C)3: NOX as a precursor to ozone  D,*                 A                   D,*                 NA
 for PSD.
(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and   D,*                 A                   D,*                 NA
 PM10 condensables for PSD.
(C)5: PM2.5 Increments...........  D,*                 A                   D,*                 NA
(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds    D,*                 A                   D,*                 NA
 in PSD regulations.
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/ A                   A                   A                   A
 interfere with maintenance of
 NAAQS.
(D)2: PSD........................  **                  **                  **                  **
(D)3: Visibility Protection......  A                   A                   A                   A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution         D,*                 A                   D,*                 A
 Abatement.
(D)5: International Pollution      A                   A                   A                   A
 Abatement.
(E): Adequate resources..........  A                   A                   A                   A
(E): State boards................  NA                  NA                  NA                  NA
(F): Stationary source monitoring  A                   A                   A                   A
 system.
(G): Emergency power.............  A                   A                   A                   A
(H): Future SIP revisions........  A                   A                   A                   A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or    NA                  NA                  NA                  NA
 plan revisions under part D.
(J)1: Consultation with            A                   A                   A                   A
 government officials.
(J)2: Public notification........  A                   A                   A                   A
(J)3: PSD........................  **                  **                  **                  **
(J)4: Visibility protection......  +                   +                   +                   +
(K): Air quality modeling and      A                   A                   A                   A
 data.
(L): Permitting fees.............  A                   A                   A                   A
(M): Consultation and              A                   A                   A                   A
 participation by affected local
 entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................  Approve.
NA..............................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D...............................  Disapprove.
+...............................  Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
*...............................  Federally promulgated rules in place.
**..............................  Previously discussed in element (C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 2, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.745 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.745  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Approval and Disapproval--In a December 31, 2012, submittal,
Illinois certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M)
for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). Although EPA is disapproving portions of
Illinois' submission addressing the prevention of significant
deterioration, Illinois continues to implement the Federally
promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J).

0
3. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or     State submittal date    EPA Approval         Comments
          provision             nonattainment area                               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)              Statewide...........  4/3/2012, 8/9/213...  7/16/2014,       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                                                [INSERT          addresses the
 for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS.                                              Federal          following CAA
                                                                            Register         elements:
                                                                            CITATION].       110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We
                                                                                are not taking
                                                                                action on the state
                                                                                board requirements
                                                                                of (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
4. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or     State submittal date/   EPA Approved         Comments
          provision             nonattainment area      effective date           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)              Statewide...........  6/19/2012 (submittal  7/16/2014,       This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                          date).                [INSERT          addresses the
 for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS.                                              Federal          following CAA
                                                                            Register         elements:
                                                                            CITATION].       110(a)(2)(A),(B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We
                                                                                are not taking
                                                                                action on the state
                                                                                board requirements
                                                                                of (E)(ii). We will
                                                                                address these
                                                                                requirements in a
                                                                                separate action.
                                                                                Although EPA is
                                                                                disapproving
                                                                                portions of
                                                                                Minnesota's
                                                                                submission
                                                                                addressing the
                                                                                prevention of
                                                                                significant
                                                                                deterioration,
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for this purpose as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                (D)(ii), and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
5. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) Approval--In a July 26, 2012, submittal, Wisconsin certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2008 lead
(Pb) NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of

significant deterioration requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We
will address these requirements in a separate action.

[FR Doc. 2014-16553 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 34738-34740]
[DOCID:fr17jy09-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6597-012]

Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of
Licensing Proceeding, Scoping Meetings, Solicitation of Comments on the
PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated
Study Requests

July 10, 2009.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Licensing Proceeding.
    b. Project No.: 6597-012.
    c. Date Filed: May 11, 2009.
    d. Submitted by: Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Monadnock Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Contoocook River in the communities of Peterborough,
Greenfield, Hancock, and Bennington in Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire. No federal lands are involved.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Michelle Hamm, Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc.,
117 Antrim Road, Bennington, NH 03442<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>
ext 255.
    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
8434.
    j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental
issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental
document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status

should follow the instructions for filing comments described in
paragraph o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's
policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ] 61,076
(2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by Section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc.
as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc. filed a Pre-Application Document
(PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. The
Commission issued a Scoping Document on July 10, 2009.
    n. A copy of the PAD and the scoping document are available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified
via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and the
scoping document, as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD
and the scoping document, and study requests should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and
the scoping document, study requests, requests for cooperating agency
status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to
the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies)
must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must
include on the first page, Monadnock Hydroelectric Project and number
(P-6597-012), and bear the heading ``Comments on Pre-Application
Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,''
``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and
from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or the scoping
document, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by
September 8, 2009.
    Comments on the PAD and the scoping document, study requests,
requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of
communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-
filing'' link.
    p. Our current intent is to prepare a single environmental
assessment (EA). These meetings will satisfy the NEPA scoping
requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or an Environmental Impact
Statement is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The evening meeting is
primarily for receiving input from the public and the daytime meeting
will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday August 4, 2009.
    Time: 7 p.m. (EST).
    Location: Veterans for Foreign Wars Hall, 9 Hancock Street,
Bennington, NH 03442.
    Contact person: Michelle Hamm at<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 255.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday August 5, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. (EST).
    Location: Veterans for Foreign Wars Hall, 9 Hancock Street,
Bennington, NH 03442.
    Contact person: Michelle Hamm at<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 255.

    The scoping document, which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the scoping
document will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the
directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Depending on the
extent of comments received, Scoping Document 2 may or may not be
issued.

Site Visit

    Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc. will conduct a site visit of the
project at 1 p.m. on Tuesday August 4, 2009. All participants should
meet at the location of the offices for Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc. at
117 Antrim Road, Bennington, NH 03442. All participants are responsible
for their own transportation. Anyone with questions about the site
visit should contact Michelle Hamm at<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 255.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and the scoping
document are included in paragraph n.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of

the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16973 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27552-27553]
[DOCID:fr17my10-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0164; FRL-9152-2]

Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a final Guidance for
Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed which EPA is
publishing pursuant to Section 502 of Executive Order (EO) 13508
(``Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration'', published on May 12,
2009). This guidance will allow the federal government to lead the way
in protecting the Bay and its watershed with the most effective tools
and practices available to reduce water pollution from a variety of
nonpoint sources, including agricultural lands, urban and suburban
areas, forestry, riparian areas, septic systems, and hydromodification.
This guidance is the first product under the Chesapeake Bay Executive
Order to provide technical tools that will be needed to restore the
Bay. Section 501 of the Executive Order directs federal agencies with
ten or more acres within the Chesapeake Bay watershed to implement the
Section 502 guidance as expeditiously as practicable and to the extent
permitted by law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Flahive, USEPA, Office of Water,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
MC 4503T, Washington, DC; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 566-1437; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration,
dated May 12, 2009 (74 FR 23099, May 15, 2009), directed EPA to prepare
and publish a guidance for federal land management in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed within one year. A draft of this guidance was released
for public comment on March 24, 2010 (75 FR 91294, March 24). This
final guidance incorporates revisions resulting from public comments,
consideration by the federal agencies, and peer review comments.

Why was this guidance prepared?

    The purpose of this guidance is to describe ``proven cost-effective
tools and practices that reduce water pollution'' that are appropriate
to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Assuming that all necessary
point source reductions are achieved and other needed restoration
actions are taken, these tools and practices, when implemented broadly,
aim to enable the Chesapeake Bay to be restored. While the primary
audience for this document is Federal land managers, nonfederal land
managers, including states, local governments, conservation districts,
watershed organizations, developers, farmers and citizens may also find
this guidance to be helpful.
    In significant part, this guidance is being developed to offer
solutions for implementation to meet specific Chesapeake Bay goals.
EPA, in

conjunction with other agencies, is currently developing Bay-wide
pollutant reduction goals that will ultimately be used to establish
total maximum daily loads (TMDL) under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The TMDL will be followed
by the development of watershed implementation plans in 92 Bay sub-
watersheds that will have had load and wasteload allocations assigned
based on the TMDL and the Chesapeake Bay model. While the Section 502
guidance is required to be published before the TMDL is finalized, we
expect that the TMDL and sub-watershed allocations will clarify that
the nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake Bay watershed will need to be
controlled, and be controlled well, in order to restore the Bay. This
guidance should help land managers identify and select practices that
should provide the needed level of control.
    This guidance has chapters addressing the following categories of
activity (excluding sources regulated as point sources): Agriculture;
Urban and Suburban areas, including Turf; Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems; Forestry; Riparian Areas; and Hydromodification.
Each chapter contains implementation measures that provide the
framework for the chapter. These are intended to convey the essential
actions that will need to be implemented in order to assure that the
broad goals of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order can be achieved. Each
chapter also includes information on practices that can be used to
achieve the goals; information on the effectiveness and costs of the
practices; where relevant, cost savings or other economic/societal
benefits (in addition to the pollutant reduction benefits) that derive
from the implementation goals and/or practices; and copious references
to other documents that provide additional information.
    EPA emphasizes that this is not a regulatory document. At the same
time it is important to realize that Section 501 of the Executive Order
directs federal agencies with ten or more acres within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed to implement the Section 502 guidance as expeditiously as
practicable and to the extent permitted by law. While this guidance may
at times refer to existing statutory and regulatory provisions that
contain legally binding requirements, this document does not substitute
for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.
Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states,
or the public and might not apply to a particular situation according
to the circumstances. EPA and state decision makers retain the
discretion to adopt approaches to control nonpoint source pollution
that differ from this guidance where appropriate, and EPA may change
this guidance in the future.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA Web site: EPA published the guidance on May 12, 2010, on our
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/nps/chesbay502. On this Web site, the
guidance can be downloaded in full or by chapter. Also available on
this Web site are a summary of the suite of implementation measures
described and a response to public and peer review comments.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0761. The final EO 13508 Section 502 guidance
document is available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
Assistance and tips for accessing the docket can be found at http://
executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net. For additional information about the
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Publicly available docket materials
are available electronically either through http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for
this docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744. Certain material, such as copyrighted materials, will
be publicly available only in hard copy at the Docket Center.

    Dated: May 11, 2010.
Peter S. Silva,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-11693 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7277-7278]
[DOCID:fr18fe10-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0055]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on How to Submit a Protocol
Without Data in Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the reporting requirements for
the information collection activity ``Guidance for Industry on How to
Submit a Protocol Without Data in Electronic Format to the Center for
Veterinary Medicine.''

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by April 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance for Industry on ``How to Submit a Protocol Without Data in
Electronic Format to the Center for Veterinary Medicine''--21 CFR
58.120 and 514.117(b) (OMB Control Number 0910-0524--Extension)

    Protocols for nonclinical laboratory studies (safety studies), are
required under 21 CFR 58.120 for approval of new animal drugs.
Protocols for adequate and well-controlled effectiveness studies are
required under 21 CFR 514.117(b). Upon request by the animal drug
sponsors, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) reviews protocols
for safety and effectiveness studies. CVM and the sponsor consider this
to be an essential part of the basis for making the decision to approve
or not approve an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug
application. The establishment of a process for acceptance of the
electronic submission of protocols for studies conducted by sponsors in
support of new animal drug applications is part of CVM's ongoing
initiative to provide a method for paperless submissions. Sponsors may
submit protocols to CVM in paper format. CVM's guidance on how to
submit a study protocol permits sponsors to submit a protocol without
data as an e-mail attachment via the Internet. Further, this guidance
also electronically implements provisions of the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA). The GPEA required Federal agencies, by October
21, 2003, to provide the following: (1) The option of electronic
maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, if practicable,
as a substitution for paper and (2) the use and acceptance of
electronic signatures, where applicable. FDA Form 3536 is used to
facilitate the use of electronic submission of protocols. This
collection of information is for the benefit of animal drug sponsors,
giving them the flexibility to submit data for review via the Internet.
    The likely respondents are sponsors of new animal drug
applications.
    FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
             21 CFR Section/FDA Form 3536                  Respondents         per Response         Responses\2\         Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
514.117(b) and 58.120                                                  40                   1.8                 72                .20               14.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
\2\ Electronic submissions received between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008.

    The number of respondents in table 1 of this document is the number
of sponsors registered to make electronic submissions (40). The number
of total annual responses is based on a review of the actual number of
such submissions made between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006, (72 x
.20 hours per response = 14.4 total hours).

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-3026 Filed 2-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72006-72007]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0659; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-12]

Establishment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Laguna
AAF, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class D airspace and Class E airspace
at Laguna Army Air Field (AAF), (Yuma Proving Ground), Yuma, AZ. The
establishment of an air traffic control tower has made this action
necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On September 19, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace
at Laguna AAF, AZ (78 FR 57545). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated
August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 1,700 feet mean sea level (MSL) within a 3.5-
mile radius of Laguna AAF (Yuma Proving Ground), Yuma, AZ; and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 8.8-
mile radius of the airfield, with a segment extending from the 8.8-mile
radius to 13.5 miles northwest of the airfield. The establishment of an
air traffic control tower has made this action necessary and provides
the required controlled airspace for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airfield.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
controlled airspace at Laguna AAF, (Yuma Proving Ground), Yuma, AZ.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

AWP AZ D Laguna AAF, AZ [New]

Laguna AAF (Yuma Proving Ground), Yuma, AZ
    (Lat. 32[deg]51'53'' N., long. 114[deg]23'35'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
1,700 feet MSL within a 3.5-mile radius of Laguna AAF; excluding
that airspace in Restricted Area R-2306E and R-2307 when they are in
effect. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Laguna AAF, AZ [New]

Laguna AAF (Yuma Proving Ground), Yuma, AZ
    (Lat. 32[deg]51'53'' N., long. 114[deg]23'35'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 8.8-mile radius of the Laguna AAF and within 2 miles each
side of the Laguna AAF 348[deg] bearing extending from the 8.8-mile
radius to 13.5 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 15, 2013 .
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-28482 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 52588]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP20-859-000]

Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice Inviting Post-Technical
Conference Comments

    On August 6, 2020, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff
convened a technical conference to discuss the above-captioned
proceeding.
    As announced at that conference, all interested persons are invited
to file post-technical conference comments to address any issues raised
in this docket. Commenters may reference previously filed material, or
file their own presentations from the technical conference, but are
encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previously filed
material. In addition, the technical conference was transcribed.
Transcripts are available from Ace Reporting Company and may be
purchased online at www.acefederal.com, or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Initial comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2020; reply
comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2020.
    Comments should be filed electronically via the internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For more information about this Notice, please contact: John
Martinic,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 20, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18728 Filed 8-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55202-55204]
[DOCID:fr28se07-85]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0834; FRL-8150-2]

Busan 77 Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability and Risk
Reduction Options

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk
assessment, and related documents for the pesticide Busan 77 and opens
a public comment period on these documents (Phase 3 of 4-Phase
Process). The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or
proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Busan 77 through a
modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to
involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration decisions.
Through this program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current
health and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0834, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0834. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ShaRon Carlisle, Antimicrobials
Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and
environmental fate and effects risk assessment and related documents
for Busan 77 and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or
proposals. Busan 77 is currently registered as an antimicrobial agent
for use in the manufacture of a variety of products used in swimming
pools, metal working fluids, cooling water towers, paper mill process
water, ornamental ponds and various sorts of fabrics. EPA developed the
risk assessment and risk characterization for Busan 77 through a
modified version of its public process for making pesticide
reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions.
Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current
standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
    This active ingredient is found in products that can be used in
swimming pools, spas whirlpools, hot tubs, metalworking fluids, fire
water protection systems, cooling water towers, petroleum secondary
recovery systems, paper mill process water, air washer water systems,
ornamental ponds and aquariums. In addition, various fibers can be
preserved with Busan 77.
    EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for
interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk
assessment(s) for Busan 77. Such comments and input could address, for
example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk
assessments, such as an acute freshwater and marine invertebrate
studies, and a textile residue study to evaluate the amount of Busan 77
remaining in textiles after treatment. This information could refine
the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied
to this specific pesticide.
    Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for
interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise
comment on risk management for Busan 77. There are risks of concern
associated with the use of Busan 77 in  residential settings from
treating aquatic areas (dermal and inhalation); occupational exposure
for machinist using biocide treated metalworking fluids; and ecological
risk to freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates and marine
invertebrates because of the once-through cooling water use. In
targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on
effective and practical risk reduction measures.
    EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical, unusually high exposure to Busan 77 compared to the
general population.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation

Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2004 (69 FR
26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the
Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate
with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and
degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For Busan 77 a
modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment period and ample opportunity
for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its refined risk
assessment and/or other factors. However, if as a result of comments
received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues
warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the
process and include a second comment period, as needed.
    All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES,
and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments
will become part of the Agency Docket for Busan 77. Comments received
after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is
not required to consider these late comments.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in
product-specific data on individual end-use products and either
reregistering products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory
action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 20, 2007.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-19236 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45866-45868]
[DOCID:fr10au06-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54275; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Modified ROS Opening Procedure Cut-Off
Times

August 4, 2006.
    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 July 27, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
non-controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\
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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify certain cut-off times applicable to
its modified Rapid Opening System (``ROS'') opening procedure for the
calculation of settlement prices of volatility indexes. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets:
* * * * *

Rule 6.2A. Rapid Opening System

    This rule has no applicability to series trading on the CBOE Hybrid
Opening System. Such series will be governed by Rule 6.2B.
    (a)--(c) No change.
    * * * Interpretation and Policies:
    .01-.02 No change.
    .03 Modified ROS Opening Procedure For Calculation of Settlement
Prices of Volatility Indexes.
    All provisions set forth in Rule 6.2A and the accompanying
interpretations and policies shall remain in effect unless superseded
or modified by this Rule 6.2A.03. To facilitate the calculation of a
settlement price for futures and options contracts on volatility
indexes, the Exchange shall utilize a modified ROS opening procedure
for any index option series with respect to which a volatility index is
calculated (including any index option series opened under Rule
6.2A.01). This modified ROS opening procedure will be utilized only on
the final settlement date of the options and futures contracts on the
applicable volatility index in each expiration month.
    The following provisions shall be applicable when the modified ROS
opening procedure set forth in this Rule 6.2A.03 is in effect for an
index option with respect to which a volatility index is calculated:
    (i)-(iv) No change.
    (v) All index option orders for participation in the modified ROS
opening procedure that are related to positions in, or a trading
strategy involving, volatility index options or futures, and any change
to or cancellation of any such order:
    (A) must be received prior to 8 a.m. (CT), and
    (B) may not be cancelled or changed after 8 a.m. (CT), unless the
order is not executed in the modified ROS opening procedure and the
cancellation or change is submitted after the modified ROS opening
procedure is concluded (provided that any such order may be changed or
cancelled after 8:00 a.m. (CT) and prior to [8:25 a.m. (CT)] applicable
cut-off time established in accordance with paragraph (vi) in order to
correct a legitimate error, in which case the member submitting the
change or cancellation shall prepare and maintain a memorandum setting
forth the circumstances that resulted in the change or cancellation and
shall file a copy of the memorandum with the Exchange no later than the
next business day in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange).
    In general, the Exchange shall consider index option orders to be
related to positions in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility
index options or futures for purposes of this Rule 6.2A.03(v) if the
orders possess the following three characteristics:
    (i)-(iii) No change.
    Whether index option orders are related to positions in, or a
trading strategy involving, volatility index options or futures for
purposes of this Rule 6.2A.03(v) depends upon specific facts and
circumstances. Order types other than those provided above may also be
deemed by the Exchange to fall within this category of orders if the
Exchange determines that to be the case based upon the applicable facts
and circumstances.
    The provisions of this Rule 6.2A.03(v) may be suspended by two
Floor Officials in the event of unusual market conditions.
    (vi) All other index option orders for participation in the
modified ROS opening procedure, and any change to or cancellation of
any such order, must be received prior to [8:25 a.m. (CT)] the
applicable cut-off time in order to participate at the ROS opening
price for the applicable index option series. The applicable cut-off
time for the affected index option series will be established by the
appropriate Procedure Committee on a class-by-class basis, provided the
cut-off time will be no earlier than 8:25 a.m. (CT) and no later than
8:30 a.m. (CT). All pronouncements regarding changes to the applicable
cut-off time will be announced to the membership via Regulatory
Circular that is issued at least one day prior to implementation.
    (vii)--(ix) 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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The modified ROS opening procedure facilitates the trading of
options and futures on volatility indexes intended to be traded on CBOE
or on CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (``CFE'') by modifying certain of the
rules that govern ROS for index option series whose prices are used to
derive the volatility indexes on which options and futures are traded.
The modified opening procedure is only utilized on the settlement days
of options and futures contracts on the applicable volatility indexes
in each expiration month.
    In relevant part, the modified ROS opening procedure allows all
orders (including public customer, broker-dealer, Exchange market-maker
and away market-maker and specialist orders), other than contingency
orders, to be eligible to be placed on the electronic book for those
option contract months whose prices are used to derive the volatility
indexes on which options and futures are traded, for the purpose of
permitting those orders to participate in the ROS opening price
calculation for the applicable index option series. The procedure also
provides that, if the ROS system is implemented in an option contract
for which Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs'') have been appointed, the LMMs
will collectively set the AutoQuote values that will be used by ROS.
    The procedure specifies certain cut-off times respecting the
receipt of orders for participation in the opening. Currently, CBOE
Rule 6.2A.03(v) provides that index option orders that are related to
positions in, or a trading strategy involving, volatility index options
or futures, and any change to or cancellation of any such order
(``strategy orders''), must be received prior to 8:00 a.m. (all times
noted herein are Central Time).\4\ CBOE Rule 6.2A.03(vi) provides that
all other index option orders, and any change to or cancellation of any
such order (``non-strategy orders''), must be received prior to 8:25
a.m. These cut-off times have been revised over time based on the
Exchange's experience in applying the procedure.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Certain exceptions to the 8:00 a.m. cut-off time apply with
respect to strategy orders. For instance, under the current
procedure, a strategy order may not be cancelled or changed after
8:00 a.m., unless the order is not executed in the modified ROS
opening procedure and the cancellation or change is submitted after
the modified ROS opening procedure is concluded (provided that any
such order may be changed or cancelled after 8:00 a.m. and prior to
8:25 a.m. in order to correct a legitimate error, in which case the
member submitting the change or cancellation shall prepare and
maintain a memorandum setting for the circumstances that resulted in
the change or cancellation and shall file a copy of the memorandum
with the Exchange no later than the next business day in a form and
manner prescribed by the Exchange). CBOE Rule 6.2A.03(v)(B). The
cut-off requirements may be suspended by two Floor Officials in the
event of unusual market conditions. CBOE Rule 6.2A.03(v).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49468 (March 24,
2004), 69 FR 17000 (March 31, 2004) (SR-CBOE2004-11) (order
approving the modified ROS opening procedure on a pilot basis which
initially established the cut-off time for all orders at 8:25 a.m.);
49798 (June 3, 2004), 69 FR 32644 (June 10, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-23)
(order permanently approving the modified ROS opening procedure
pilot program); 49798A (July 6, 2004), 69 FR 41868 (July 12, 2004)
(correction to approval order); 49679 (May 11, 2004), 69 FR 27957
(May 17, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-27) (notice of filing and immediately
effectiveness which revised the cut-off time for all orders to 8:28
a.m.); and 52367 (August 31, 2005), 70 FR 53401 (September 8, 2005)
(SR-CBOE-2004-86) (order approving an amendment to the permanent
program that, in relevant part, revised the cut-off time to its
current form, which is 8:00 a.m. for strategy orders and 8:25 a.m.
for non-strategy orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The instant rule change amends the language in the rule text
respecting the 8:25 a.m. cut-off time for non-strategy orders by
eliminating the specific time and instead providing that the cut-off
time may be established by the appropriate Exchange procedure committee
on a class-by-class basis,\6\ provided the established cut-off time
cannot be set earlier than 8:25 a.m. or later than 8:30 a.m. The
amended rule text also provides that pronouncements regarding changes
to the established cut-off time will be announced to the membership via
Regulatory Circular that is issued at least one day prior to
implementation. Finally, the Exchange is proposing a cross-reference
change to the rule text so that the applicable cut-off time for
changing or canceling strategy orders to correct legitimate errors
corresponds with the cut-off time for entering, changing or canceling
non-strategy orders.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The modified ROS opening procedure is currently in use only
with respect to S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index (SPX) options
whose prices are used to derive the settlement value of futures on
the CBOE Volatility Index traded on CFE. However, if the ROS system
is implemented in an index option class, the Rule provides for the
modified procedure to be used to facilitate the calculation of a
settlement price for futures and options contracts on volatility
indexes for any index option series with respect to which a
volatility index is calculated. Because the modified procedure may
be used for different index option classes, the proposed rule change
seeks to provide the Exchange with the flexibility to establish the
applicable cut-off time on a class-by-class basis.
    \7\ See CBOE Rule 6.2A.03(v)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, amending the modified ROS opening
procedure in this manner will give the Exchange additional flexibility
to establish a cut-off time that, on the one hand, provides market
participants with a reasonable amount of time to monitor potential
changes in the market that may occur up until the cut-off time and to
respond to those changes through the placement of orders,
cancellations, or changes to orders previously placed on the electronic
book, and, on the other hand, provides LMMs with a reasonable amount of
time to review order imbalances on the electronic book and collectively
set AutoQuote values that will be used by ROS in calculating the
opening prices for the option series. Incorporating this flexibility
into the rule text will also provide the Exchange with the means to
more efficiently establish and implement modifications to the cut-off
time within the defined interval, and will therefore serve to foster
fair and orderly markets. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that
building this flexibility into the procedure is reasonable and
appropriate, and will improve the operation of the modified ROS opening
procedure.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and

equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has requested a waiver of the 30-day operative delay. The
Commission believes, consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest, that such waiver will permit CBOE to implement the
proposed rule change for the August 16, 2006 settlement date and to
provide advance notice of this change to members prior to that date.
For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be
effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2006-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-61. 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 section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2006-61 and should be
submitted on or before August 31, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13022 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53652-53653]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20795]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8983-01-R5; FDMS Docket No.: EPA-05-SFUND-2021-0581]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; West
Vermont Drinking Water Contamination Site, Indianapolis, Indiana; EPA
Agreement V-W-21-C-007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 5, of a proposed administrative
settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the West
Vermont Drinking Water Contamination Site (Site) in Indianapolis,
Indiana with the following parties: AIMCO Michigan Meadows Holdings,
LLC and AIMCO Properties, L.P. nka Apartment Income REIT, L.P. and
Genuine Parts Company, as the Settling Parties and Respondents, and
also AIMCO-GP, Inc. nka AIR-GP, Inc. and Apartment Investment and
Management Company as Other Covered Parties. The settlement requires
the Respondents to pay $2,825,000 in past response costs to a Special
Account. Respondents will also prepare an Engineering Evaluation and
Cost Analysis as well as pay specified interim and future response
costs. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to
Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, relating to the Site, subject to
limited reservations, and protection from contribution actions or
claims as provided by Section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA. For thirty (30) days
following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive
written comments relating to the cost recovery component of this
settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at www.epa.gov/superfund/west-vermont-water.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at www.epa.gov/superfund/west-vermont-water. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA-05-SFUND-2021-0581, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Tierney, Remedial Project
Manager, EPA, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Blvd. (SR-6J), Chicago, IL 60604; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Douglas Ballotti,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-20795 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


J-22-0008 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 J-22-0008 Sanitized Premanufature Notice (linked)
 J-22-0008 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 J-22-0008 Sanitized Risk Assment Report (attached)