[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70266]
[DOCID:fr11de07-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2007-0999; FRL-8504-3]

Rhode Island: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Rhode Island has applied to EPA for final
authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant
final authorization to Rhode Island. EPA has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through an
immediate final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. PA-R01-
RCRA-2007-0999, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to the attention of Robin Biscaia.
     Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA New
England--Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA
02114-2023.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Robin
Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA New
England--Region 1, One Congress Street, 11th Floor, (CHW), Boston, MA
02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Office's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    For further information on how to submit comments, please see
today's immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit,
U.S. EPA New England--Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW),
Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(617) 918-0642, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing these changes by an immediate
final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final
rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not
expect adverse comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons
for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule.
Unless we get written adverse comments which oppose this authorization
during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become
effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further
action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose this action, we
will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take immediate
effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule
based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you should do so at
this time.

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E7-23947 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


112. The Commission has discussed various tick size and access fee
alternatives. These alternatives could be adopted separately or in
combination. Has the Commission adequately described the economic
effects of combining various alternatives? Why or why not? Please
explain and provide as much analysis and discussion as possible.
    113. The Commission has discussed an alternative that would
accelerate the implementation of the round lot definition from the MDI
Rules but would not accelerate the inclusion of odd lot information in
NMS data and would not require a BOLO. Has the Commission adequately
described the economic effects of this alternative? Why or why not?
Please explain and provide as much analysis and discussion as possible.
    114. In addition to the proposal, should the Commission also
accelerate the inclusion of depth of book information in NMS data from
the MDI Rules? What would be the costs and benefits or other economic
effects of accelerating the inclusion of depth information in NMS data?
How would such an acceleration impact eventual competition among
competing consolidators or the realization of the anticipated costs and
benefits of the MDI Rules? Please explain.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of the proposed rules and proposed rule
amendments contain ``collection of information requirements'' within
the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''). The
Commission is submitting these collections of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review in accordance with 44
U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The title of the new collection of
information is ``Odd-Lot Information Acceleration.'' An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless the agency displays a currently valid
control number.
    The Commission does not believe that the proposed amendments to
rules 610 and 612 contain any collection of information requirements as
defined by the PRA, but the Commission encourages comments on this
point.\726\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \726\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Summary of Collection of Information

    The proposed rules and rule amendments would include a collection
of information within the meaning of the PRA. Specifically, the
proposed amendments to rule 603(b) would require the exclusive SIPs to
collect, consolidate, and disseminate odd-lot information, including
the best odd-lot orders to buy and sell. The exclusive SIPs would also
be required to disseminate indicators of the applicable round lot size
and minimum pricing increment for each NMS stock, both of which would
be provided to the exclusive SIPs by the primary listing exchange.

B. Proposed Use of Information

    The information collected under the proposed amendments to rule
603(b) would be consolidated and disseminated by the exclusive SIPs to
market participants who would use this odd-lot information for trading.
Widespread availability of odd-lot information promotes fair and
efficient markets and facilitates the ability of brokers and dealers to
trade more effectively and to provide best execution to their
customers. The round lot and minimum pricing increment indicators that
would be disseminated by the exclusive SIPs would provide market
participants with information about the parameters for trading in a
particular NMS stock.

C. Respondents

    The collection of information in the proposed changes to rule
603(b) would apply to the two exclusive SIPs.

D. Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

1. Initial Burden Hours and Costs
    The Commission preliminarily believes that the two exclusive SIPs
would have to modify their systems to collect, consolidate, and
disseminate the odd-lot information, including the best odd-lot orders
to buy and sell, that they do not currently collect, consolidate, and
disseminate \727\ and to disseminate the round-lot and minimum pricing
increment indicators provided by the primary listing exchange. These
modifications would involve the addition of new hardware, network
infrastructure, and bandwidth, as well as programming and development
costs, to take in additional inbound odd-lot quotation messages from
SROs, to calculate odd-lot information, and to consolidate and
disseminate odd-lot information and the round lot and minimum pricing
increment indicators to subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \727\ The exclusive SIPs currently disseminate odd-lot
transaction data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that each exclusive SIP would incur 440
initial burden hours to modify its systems to collect, calculate,
consolidate and disseminate odd-lot information and to disseminate the
round-lot and minimum pricing increment indicators \728\ and initial
external costs of $412,500 to purchase the necessary technology to
effect such modifications.\729\ Thus, the

Commission estimates that the total initial burden hours for two
exclusive SIPs would be 880 burden hours \730\ and that total initial
external costs would be $825,000.\731\ The Commission solicits comment
on the accuracy of these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \728\ The Commission estimates the monetized initial burden for
this requirement to be $154,580, broken down as follows: [(Sr.
Programmer at $368/hour for 210 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at
$316/hour for 180 hours) + (Compliance Manager at $344/hour for 20
hours) + (Director of Compliance at $542/hour for 10 hours) +
(Compliance Attorney at $406/hour for 20 hours)] = 440 initial
burden hours to modify its systems to comply with the requirement to
collect, calculate, and disseminate odd-lot information. The
Commission based these estimates on 10% of the initial burden hour
estimates for each exclusive SIP to become a competing consolidator
provided in the MDI Rules to account for the fact that this proposal
does not require the exclusive SIPs to calculate and disseminate
full consolidated market data (e.g., depth of book data or auction
information) as defined in the MDI Rules. See MDI Adopting Release,
supra note 5, at 18712-13. The Commission derived the hourly rate
figures from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified to account for an 1,800-hour
work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
    \729\ The Commission arrived at this estimate by dividing the
initial external cost estimate provided in the MDI Rules for each
exclusive SIP to become a competing consolidator by three to account
for the fact that the exclusive SIPs would not need to build
aggregation systems in three separate data centers to collect,
calculate, and disseminate odd-lot information. See MDI Adopting
Release, supra note 5, at 18712-13.
    \730\ The Commission estimates the monetized initial burden for
this requirement to be $309,160, broken down as follows: [(Sr.
Programmer at $368/hour for 210 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at
$316/hour for 180 hours) + (Compliance Manager at $344/hour for 20
hours) + (Director of Compliance at $542/hour for 10 hours) +
(Compliance Attorney at $406/hour for 20 hours)] x [(2 exclusive
SIPs)] = 880 total initial burden hours across the exclusive SIPs.
    \731\ The Commission estimates total initial external costs as
follows: initial external costs of $412,500 per exclusive SIP x (2
exclusive SIPs) = $825,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ongoing Burden Hours and Costs
    The Commission preliminarily believes that the two exclusive SIPs
would incur annual ongoing burden hours and external costs to operate
and maintain their modified systems to collect, calculate, and
disseminate odd-lot information and to disseminate the round-lot and
minimum pricing increment indicators. The Commission estimates that
each exclusive SIP would incur 132 ongoing, annual burden hours \732\
and ongoing, annual external costs of $123,725 to operate and maintain
its systems to collect, calculate, and disseminate odd-lot information
and to disseminate the round-lot and minimum pricing increment
indicators.\733\ Thus, the Commission estimates that the total ongoing,
annual burden hours for two exclusive SIPs would be 264 burden hours
\734\ and that total ongoing, annual external costs would be
$247,450.\735\ The Commission solicits comment on the accuracy of these
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \732\ The Commission estimates the monetized annual ongoing
burden for this requirement to be $46,374, broken down as follows:
[(Sr. Programmer at $368/hour for 63 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst
at $316/hour for 54 hours) + (Compliance Manager at $344/hour for 6
hours) + (Director of Compliance at $542/hour for 3 hours) +
(Compliance Attorney at $406/hour for 6 hours)] = 132 ongoing,
annual burden hours to operate and maintain its systems to comply
with the requirement to collect, calculate, and disseminate odd-lot
information. The Commission based these estimates on 10% of the
ongoing, annual burden hour estimates provided in the MDI Rules for
each exclusive SIP competing consolidator to operate and maintain
its systems to comply with Rules 614(d)(1) through (4) to account
for the fact that this proposal does not require the exclusive SIPs
to calculate and disseminate full consolidated market data (e.g.,
depth of book data or auction information) as defined in the MDI
Rules. See MDI Adopting Release, supra note 5, at 18712-13. The
Commission derived the hourly rate figures from SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified to
account for an 1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by
5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead.
    \733\ The Commission arrived at this estimate by dividing by
three the ongoing, annual external cost estimate provided in the MDI
Rules for each exclusive SIP competing consolidator to operate and
maintain its systems to comply with rules 614(d)(1) through (4) to
account for the fact that the exclusive SIPs will not need to build
aggregation systems in three separate data centers to collect,
calculate, and disseminate odd-lot information. See MDI Adopting
Release, supra note 5, at 18712-13.
    \734\ The Commission estimates the monetized annual ongoing
burden for this requirement to be $92,748, broken down as follows:
[(Sr. Programmer at $368/hour for 63 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst
at $316/hour for 54 hours) + (Compliance Manager at $344/hour for 6
hours) + (Director of Compliance at $542/hour for 3 hours) +
(Compliance Attorney at $406/hour for 6 hours)] x [(2 exclusive
SIPs)] = 264 total ongoing, annual burden hours across the exclusive
SIPs.
    \735\ The Commission estimates total annual ongoing external
costs as follows: annual ongoing external costs of $123,725 per
exclusive SIP x (2 exclusive SIPs) = $247,450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Collection of Information Is Mandatory

    The collection of information discussed above would be a mandatory
collection of information.

F. Confidentiality

    This information collection would be public.

G. Revisions to Current MDI Rules Burden Estimates

    Currently, the MDI Rules impose ``collection of information''
requirements within the meaning of the PRA. Specifically, pursuant to
rule 603(b), SROs are required to make available all data necessary to
generate consolidated market data to competing consolidators and self-
aggregators. As explained in more detail below, the Commission is
proposing to revise the burden estimates associated with this
requirement in light of the amendments the Commission is proposing. In
the MDI Rules, the Commission estimated that each SRO will require an
average of 220 initial burden hours of legal, compliance, information
technology, and business operations personnel time to prepare and
implement a system to collect the information necessary to generate
consolidated market data (for a total cost per SRO of $70,865).\736\
The Commission estimated that each SRO would incur an annual average
burden on an ongoing basis of 396 hours to collect the information
necessary to generate consolidated market data required by Rule 603(b)
(for a total cost per SRO of $128,064).\737\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \736\ The Commission estimated the monetized initial burden for
this requirement to be $70,865. The Commission derived this estimate
based on per hour figures from SIFMA's Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified to account for an
1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead:
[(Compliance Manager at $310 for 105 hours) + (Attorney at $417 for
70 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at $285 for 20 hours) + (Operations
Specialist at $137 for 25 hours)] = 220 initial burden hours and
$70,865.
    \737\ The Commission estimated the monetized ongoing, annual
burden for this requirement to be $128,064. The Commission derived
this estimate based on per hour figures from SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified to
account for an 1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by
5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead: [(Compliance Manager at $310 for 192 hours) + (Attorney at
$417 for 48 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at $285 for 96 hours)] =
336 initial burden hours and $128,064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Commission is proposing to amend rule
603(b) to require SROs to make available all data necessary to generate
odd-lot information to the exclusive SIPs. The SROs already provide
certain quotation information to the exclusive SIPs, and many SROs
already provide odd-lot quotation information to customers through
their proprietary data feeds.\738\ Nevertheless, providing the
exclusive SIPs with the data necessary to generate odd-lot information
may entail additional burdens. Specifically, technical development work
may be needed to direct odd-lot quotations to the exclusive SIPs and to
expand the capacity of the existing connections through which the SROs
provide data to the exclusive SIPs to support the additional message
traffic associated with odd-lot quotations. Therefore, the Commission
is proposing to revise its burden estimates for rule 603(b) upwards by
5% to account for the provision of the data necessary to generate odd-
lot information to the exclusive SIPs.\739\ Specifically, the
Commission is proposing to add 11 initial burden hours \740\ and 19.8
annual

burden hours \741\ to its previous estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \738\ See MDI Proposing Release, supra note 39, at 16738; MDI
Adopting Release, supra note 5, at 18599.
    \739\ The Commission believes that 5% of the initial and
ongoing, annual burden hour estimates provided in the MDI Rules for
each SRO to make the data necessary to generate consolidated market
data available to competing consolidators and self-aggregators is
appropriate because the SROs already collect the data necessary to
generate odd-lot information and this information is a subset of
consolidated market data as defined in the MDI Rules.
    \740\ The Commission estimates the monetized initial burden for
this requirement to be $3,929. The Commission derived this estimate
based on per hour figures from SIFMA's Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified to account for an
1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead:
[(Compliance Manager at $344 for 5.25 hours) + (Attorney at $462 for
3.5 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at $316 for 1 hour) + (Operations
Specialist at $152 for 1.25 hours)] = 11 initial burden hours and
$3,929.
    \741\ The Commission estimates the monetized ongoing, annual
burden for this requirement to be $7,050. The Commission derived
this estimate based on per hour figures from SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified to
account for an 1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by
5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead: [(Compliance Manager at $344 for 10.6 hours) + (Attorney
at $462 for 3.4 hours) + (Sr. Systems Analyst at $316 for 5.8
hours)] = 19.8 annual burden hours and $7,050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission is proposing to require the primary
listing exchange for each NMS stock to provide an indicator of the
round lot size to the applicable exclusive SIP for dissemination and to
calculate and provide to competing consolidators, self-aggregators, and
the applicable exclusive SIP an indicator of the applicable minimum
pricing increment for dissemination. The primary listing exchange is
already required to calculate the applicable round lot size and provide
it to competing consolidators and self-aggregators under the MDI Rules,
and the incremental burden of providing this indicator to the two
exclusive SIPs is likely to be minimal. However, calculating the
applicable minimum pricing increment and providing it to competing
consolidators, self-aggregators, and the exclusive SIPs would entail
additional burdens. Specifically, primary listing exchanges would need
to program systems to calculate the applicable minimum pricing
increment for each NMS stock that they list each quarter based on its
Time Weighted Average Quoted Spread and to include this information in
the data that they provide to competing consolidators, self-
aggregators, and the exclusive SIPs. Therefore, the Commission is
proposing to revise its burden estimates for rule 603(b) upwards to
account for the calculation of the applicable minimum pricing increment
and the provision of this information to competing consolidators, self-
aggregators, and the exclusive SIPs. Specifically, the Commission is
proposing to add 50 initial burden hours \742\ and 32 annual burden
hours \743\ for each primary listing exchange to its previous estimates
and 250 total initial burden hours \744\ and 160 total annual burden
hours \745\ for five primary listing exchanges. The Commission solicits
comment on the accuracy of these revised estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \742\ The Commission estimates the monetized initial burden for
this requirement to be $19,000 per primary listing exchange. See
supra notes 620-623 and accompanying text.
    \743\ The Commission estimates the monetized ongoing, annual
burden for this requirement to be $9,000 per primary listing
exchange. Id.
    \744\ 50 initial burden hours per primary listing exchange x 5
primary listing exchanges = 250 total initial burden hours. The
Commission estimates the total monetized initial burden of this
requirement to be $95,000 ($19,000 per primary listing exchange x 5
primary listing exchanges = $95,000). Id.
    \745\ 32 annual burden hours per primary listing exchange x 5
primary listing exchanges = 160 total annual burden hours. The
Commission estimates the total monetized annual burden of this
requirement to be $45,000 ($9,000 per primary listing exchange x 5
primary listing exchanges = $45,000. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the MDI Rules include a collection of information
requirement under rules 614(d)(1) through (3), which require competing
consolidators to collect from the SROs quotation and transaction
information for NMS stocks, calculate and generate a consolidated
market data product, and make the consolidated market data product
available to subscribers.\746\ As discussed above, the Commission is
proposing to amend the definition of odd-lot information to include a
specified best odd-lot order to buy and best odd-lot order to sell.
Since the odd-lot quotes that a competing consolidator would use to
identify and disseminate the best odd-lot orders--if the competing
consolidator offers a consolidated market data product that includes
this information--are already included in the data necessary to
generate odd-lot information, the Commission believes that the existing
burden estimates for rules 614(d)(1) through (3) account for the
identification and dissemination of the best odd-lot orders. The
Commission solicits comment on whether, and the extent to which,
amending the definition of odd-lot information to include the best odd-
lot orders would affect the burden estimates for rules 614(d)(1)
through (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \746\ MDI Adopting Release, supra note 5, at 18703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Request for Comments

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits
comments to:
    115. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility;
    116. Evaluate the accuracy of our estimates of the burden of the
proposed collection of information;
    117. Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
    118. Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and
    119. Evaluate whether the proposed amendments would have any
effects on any other collection of information not previously
identified in this section.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and
should also send a copy of their comments to Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090, with
reference to File Number S7-30-22. Requests for materials submitted to
OMB by the Commission with regard to this collection of information
should be in writing, with reference to File Number S7-30-22 and be
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA/PA
Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736. As OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
between 30 and 60 days after publication, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.

VII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''),\747\ the Commission requests comment on the
potential effect of the proposed rule on the United States economy on
an annual basis. The Commission also requests comment on any potential
increases in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries,
and any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation.
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual
support for their views to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \747\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \748\ requires Federal
agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules
on small entities. Section 603(a) \749\ of the Administrative Procedure
Act,\750\ as amended by the

RFA, generally requires the Commission to undertake a regulatory
flexibility analysis of all proposed rules, or proposed rule
amendments, to determine the impact of such rulemaking on ``small
entities.'' \751\ Section 605(b) of the RFA states that this
requirement shall not apply to any proposed rule or proposed rule
amendment, which if adopted, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities'' \752\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \748\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \749\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \750\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    \751\ The Commission has adopted definitions for the term
``small entity'' for purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance
with the RFA. Those definitions, as relevant to this proposed
rulemaking, are set forth in 17 CFR 240.0-10 (Rule 0-10). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 18451 (Jan. 28, 1982), 47 FR
5215 (Feb. 4, 1982) (File No. AS-305).
    \752\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Amendments to Rule 612--Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis

    The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), in accordance with the provisions of the RFA \753\
regarding the proposed amendments to rule 612 of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \753\ 5 U.S.C. 603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Reasons for the Proposed Action
    As discussed in section II.F., the Commission believes that rule
612 should be amended to update and modernize the rule for the current
trading environment. Rule 612 establishes the minimum pricing
increments for NMS stocks and these increments have not been adjusted
since they were adopted in 2005. Today, several NMS stocks experience
tick-constraint, in that they are unable to be priced in an amount that
would be determined by competitive market forces and supply and demand.
Further, while rule 612 does not restrict trading outside of the
minimum pricing increments required by the rule, the structure of the
market impedes the ability of certain trading centers to trade in sub-
penny increments and allows others to readily trade in such increments.
The proposed amendments to rule 612 would harmonize the trading in NMS
stocks in the minimum pricing increments set forth in rule 612.
2. Legal Basis
    Pursuant to the Exchange Act and, particularly, sections 3(b), 5,
6, 11A, 15, 15A, 17(a) and (b), 23(a), and 36 thereof, 15 U.S.C.
78c(b), 78e, 78f, 78k-1, 78o, 78o-3, 78mm, 78q(a) and (b), and 78w(a),
the Commission proposes to amend rule 612.
3. Small Entities Subject to the Rule
    Proposed rule 612 would apply to national securities exchanges,
national securities associations, ATSs, vendors, and broker or dealers.
a. National Securities Exchanges and National Securities Associations
    None of the national securities exchanges is a small entity as
defined by Commission rules. Exchange Act Rule 0-10(e) \754\ states
that the term ``small business'' when referring to an exchange means
any exchange that has been exempted from the reporting requirements of
Exchange Act rule 601 and is not affiliated with any person that is not
a small business or small organization. There is only one national
securities association, and the Commission has previously stated that
it is not a small entity as defined by 13 CFR 121.201.\755\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \754\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(e).
    \755\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62174 (May
26, 2010), 75 FR 32556, 32605 n. 416 (June 8, 2010) (``FINRA is not
a small entity as defined by 13 CFR 121.201.''); MDI Adopting
Release, supra note 5, at 18808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Broker-Dealers
    Commission rule 0-10(c) defines a broker-dealer as a small entity
for the purpose of this section if the broker-dealer had a total
capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000
on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial
statements were prepared, had less than $200 million of funds and
securities in its custody of control at all times during the preceding
fiscal year, and the broker-dealer is not affiliated with any person
(other than a natural person) that is not a small entity.\756\ The
Commission estimates that as of June 30, 2022 there were approximately
761 Commission registered broker-dealers that would be small entities
for purposes of the statute that would be required to comply with the
proposed amendments to rule 612 regarding quotation and trading in the
proposed minimum pricing increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \756\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 612 apples to NMS stocks and therefore, the rule would apply
to NMS Stock ATSs. NMS Stock ATSs that are not registered as exchanges
are required to register as broker-dealers.\757\ Accordingly, NMS Stock
ATSs would be considered small entities if they fall within the
standard for small entities that would apply to broker-dealers. The
Commission examined recent FOCUS data for the 33 broker-dealers that
currently operate NMS Stock ATSs and, applying the test for broker-
dealers described above, believes that none of the NMS Stock ATSs
currently trading NMS stocks were operated by a broker-dealer that is a
``small entity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \757\ Rule 301(b)(1) of Regulation ATS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Vendors
    A vendor is defined in rule 600(b)(100) of Regulation NMS as any
SIP engaged in the business of disseminating transaction reports, last
sale data, or quotations with respect to NMS securities to brokers,
dealers, or investors on a real-time or other current and continuing
basis, whether through an electronic communications network, moving
ticker, or interrogation device.\758\ Commission rule 0-10(g) states
that the term small business when referring to a SIP, means any SIP
that had gross revenues of less than $10 million during the preceding
year, provided service to fewer than 100 interrogation devices or
moving tickers at all times during the preceding year, and is not
affiliated with any person that is not a small business or small
organization.\759\ The Commission estimates that there are
approximately 80 vendors, 13 of which would be small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \758\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(100).
    \759\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
    Rule 612 as proposed to be amended would not impose any new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on market
participants that are small entities.
5. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
    The Commission believes that there are no federal rules that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives
    Pursuant to section 3(a) of the RFA, the Commission must consider
the following types of alternatives: (a) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (b) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the proposed rule for small entities; (c)
the use of performance rather than design standards; and (d) an
exemption from coverage of the proposed rule, or any part thereof, for
small entities.
    The primary goal of rule 612 is to provide uniform minimum pricing
increments for NMS stocks. This primary goal continues with the
proposed amendments to rule 612. As

such, the Commission believes that imposing different compliance or
reporting requirements or possibly a different timetable for
implementing compliance or reporting requirements, for small entities
could undermine the goal of uniformity. In addition, the Commission has
concluded similarly that it would not be consistent with the primary
goal to further clarify, consolidate or simplify the proposed
amendments to rule 612 for small entities. The proposed amendments to
rule 612 are performance standards and do not dictate for entities of
any size any particular design standards (e.g., technology) that must
be employed to achieve the objectives of the proposed rule. The
Commission also preliminarily believes that it would be inconsistent
with the purposes of the Exchange Act to specify different requirements
for small entities or to exempt broker-dealers from the proposed
amendments to rule 612.
7. Request for Comments
    The Commission encourages written comments on matters discussed in
the IRFA. In particular, the Commission requests comments on (i) the
number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed
amendments to rule 612; (ii) the nature of any impact that the proposed
amendments to rule 612 would have on small entities and empirical data
supporting the extent of the impact; and (iii) how to quantify the
number of small entities that would be affected by and/or how to
quantify the impact of the proposed amendments to rule 612. Such
comments will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, if the proposed amendments to rule 612 are
adopted, and will be placed in the same public comment file as comments
on the proposed amendments to rule 612 itself.

B. Proposed Amendments to Rule 610

    The proposed changes to rule 610(c) would apply to trading centers
as defined in Rule 600(b)(95) that impose fees for access against a
protected quotation or any other quotation of the trading center that
is the best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange or
national securities association. As discussed above, currently national
securities exchanges are the only trading centers that publish
protected quotations. Pursuant to Rule 0-10(e), none of the national
securities exchanges are a small entities for the purposes of the
RFA.\760\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \760\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule 610(d) would apply to national securities exchanges
registered with the Commission under section 6 of the Exchange Act.
Pursuant to rule 0-10(e), none of the national securities exchanges are
a small entities for the purposes of the RFA.\761\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \761\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for the purposes of the RFA, the Commission certifies
that the proposed amendments to rule 610(c) and proposed rule 610(d)
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    The Commission requests comment regarding this certification. In
particular, the Commission solicits comment on the following:
    1. Do commenters agree with the Commission's certification? If not,
please describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide
empirical data to illustrate the extent of the impact.

C. Proposed Amendments to Rule 603 and Definitions Odd-Lot Information
and Regulatory Data Under Rule 600

    The proposed amendments to rule 603(b) and to the definitions of
odd-lot information and regulatory data in rule 600(b) would apply to
national securities exchanges registered with the Commission under
section 6 of the Exchange Act, national securities associations
registered with the Commission under section 15A of the Exchange Act,
and the exclusive SIPs. Pursuant to rule 0-10(e), none of the national
securities exchanges are small entities for the purposes of the
RFA.\762\ There is only one national securities association, and the
Commission has previously stated that it is not a small entity as
defined by 13 CFR 121.201.\763\ With respect to the exclusive SIPs,
neither SIAC nor Nasdaq \764\ meet the criteria for a ``small
business'' or ``small organization'' when used with reference to a
securities information processor.\765\ Thus, the proposed amendments to
Rules 600(b) and 603(b) would not affect any small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \762\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(e). Paragraph (e) of rule 0-10 states
that the term ``small business,'' when referring to an exchange,
means any exchange that has been exempted from the reporting
requirements of rule 601 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.601, and is
not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is
not a small business or small organization as defined in rule 0-10.
Under this standard, none of the exchanges subject to the amendments
to rules 600(b) or 603(b) are ``small entities'' for the purposes of
the RFA. See MDI Adopting Release, supra note 5, at 18808.
    \763\ See supra note 755.
    \764\ See supra note 326.
    \765\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(g). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61595 (Feb. 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232, 11320 (Mar. 10,
2010) (determining that SIAC and Nasdaq are not small entities for
purposes of the RFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed amendments to rule 603(b) and the
definitions of odd-lot information and regulatory data under rule 600
would not apply to any ``small entities.'' Therefore, for the purposes
of the RFA, the Commission certifies that the proposed amendments to
rule 603(b) and rule 600(b) would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Commission requests comment regarding this certification. In
particular, the Commission solicits comment on the following:
    1. Do commenters agree with the Commission's certification? If not,
please describe the nature of any impact on small entities and provide
empirical data to illustrate the extent of the impact.

Statutory Authority and Text of the Proposed Rule Amendments

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly sections 2, 3(b), 5,
6, 11, 11A, 15, 15A, 17, 19, 23(a), and 36 thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78c,
78e, 78f, 78k, 78k-1, 78o, 78o-3, 78q, 78s, 78w(a), and 78mm the
Commission proposes to amend Sections 242.600, 242.603, 242.610, and
242.612 of chapter II of title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 242

    Regulations M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS, and SBSR and Customer Margin
Requirements for Security Futures.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is proposing
to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 242--REGULATIONS M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS, AND SBSR AND CUSTOMER
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY FUTURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2),
78i(a), 78j, 78k-1(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g),
78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, and
80a-37.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  242.600 paragraph (b) by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (59)(i) the text ``and'' from the end of the
paragraph;
0
b. Adding in paragraph (59)(ii) the text ``and'' to the end of the
paragraph;
0
c. Adding paragraph (59)(iii);
0
d. Removing in paragraph (78)(i)(D) the text ``and'' from the end of
the paragraph;

0
e. Removing in paragraph (78)(i)(E) the period from the end of the
paragraph and adding the text ``; and'' in its place;
0
f. Adding paragraphs (78)(i)(F) and (iv).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  242.600  NMS security designation and definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (59) * * *
    (iii) Best odd-lot order to buy and best odd-lot order to sell. The
best odd-lot order to buy means the highest priced odd-lot order to buy
that is priced higher than the national best bid, and the best odd-lot
order to sell means the lowest priced odd-lot order to sell that is
priced lower than the national best offer, for an NMS stock that are
calculated and disseminated on a current and continuing basis by a
competing consolidator or plan processor or calculated by a self-
aggregator; provided, that in the event two or more market centers
transmit to a competing consolidator, plan processor, or a self-
aggregator identical odd-lot buy orders or odd-lot sell orders for an
NMS stock, the highest priced odd-lot buy order or lowest priced odd-
lot sell order (as the case may be) shall be determined by ranking all
such identical odd-lot buy orders or odd-lot sell orders (as the case
may be) first by size (giving the highest ranking to the odd-lot buy
order or odd-lot sell order associated with the largest size), and then
by time (giving the highest ranking to the odd-lot buy order or odd-lot
sell order received first in time).
* * * * *
    (78) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) An indicator of the applicable minimum pricing increment
required under Sec.  242.612.
* * * * *
    (iv) The primary listing exchange shall also provide the
information required under paragraphs (b)(78)(i)(E) and (F) of this
section to the applicable plan processor for dissemination.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  242.603 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  242.603  Distribution, consolidation, dissemination, and display
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS
stocks.

* * * * *
    (b) Consolidation and dissemination of information.
    (1) Application of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section:
    (i) Compliance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section is required
until the date indicated by the Commission in any order approving
amendments to the effective national market system plan(s) to
effectuate a cessation of the operations of the plan processors that
disseminate consolidated information regarding NMS stocks.
    (ii) Compliance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section is required
180 calendar days from the date of the Commission's approval of the
amendments, filed as required under Sec.  242.614(e), to the effective
national market system plan(s).
    (2) Every national securities exchange on which an NMS stock is
traded and national securities association shall act jointly pursuant
to one or more effective national market system plans for the
dissemination of consolidated market data. Every national securities
exchange on which an NMS stock is traded and national securities
association shall make available to all competing consolidators and
self-aggregators its information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks, including all data necessary to generate
consolidated market data, in the same manner and using the same
methods, including all methods of access and the same format, as such
national securities exchange or national securities association makes
available any information with respect to quotations for and
transactions in NMS stocks to any person.
    (3) Every national securities exchange on which an NMS stock is
traded and national securities association shall act jointly pursuant
to one or more effective national market system plans to disseminate
consolidated information, including a national best bid and national
best offer and odd-lot information, on quotations for and transactions
in NMS stocks. Such plan or plans shall provide for the dissemination
of all consolidated information for an individual NMS stock through a
single plan processor and such single plan processor must represent
quotation sizes in such consolidated information in terms of the number
of shares, rounded down to the nearest multiple of a round lot. Every
national securities exchange on which an NMS stock is traded and
national securities association shall make available to a plan
processor all data necessary to generate odd-lot information.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  242.610 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  242.610  Access to quotations.

* * * * *
    (c) Fees for access to quotations. A trading center shall not
impose, nor permit to be imposed, any fee or fees for the execution of
an order against a protected quotation of the trading center or against
any other quotation of the trading center that is the best bid or best
offer of a national securities exchange or the best bid or best offer
of a national securities association in an NMS stock that exceed or
accumulate to more than the following limits:
    (1) If the price of a protected quotation or other quotation is
$1.00 or more, the fee or fees cannot exceed or accumulate to more
than:
    (i) $0.0005 per share for an NMS stock that has a minimum pricing
increment of $0.001 and
    (ii) $0.001 per share for an NMS stock that has a minimum pricing
increment greater than $0.001; or
    (2) If the price of a protected quotation or other quotation is
less than $1.00, the fee or fees cannot exceed or accumulate to more
than 0.05% of the quotation price per share.
    (d) Transparency of fees. A national securities exchange shall not
impose, nor permit to be imposed, any fee or fees, or provide, or
permit to be provided, any rebate or other remuneration, for the
execution of an order in an NMS stock that cannot be determined at the
time of execution.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec.  242.612 to read as follows:

Sec.  242.612  Minimum pricing increment.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this rule only, the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth in this rule.
    Evaluation Period means the last month of a calendar quarter (March
in the first quarter, June in the second quarter, September in the
third quarter and December in the fourth quarter) of a calendar year
during which the primary listing exchange shall measure the Time
Weighted Average Quoted Spread of an NMS stock that is priced equal to
or greater than $1.00 per share to determine the minimum pricing
increment to be in effect for an NMS stock for the next calendar
quarter, as set forth by paragraph (c) of this section.
    Time Weighted Average Quoted Spread means the average dollar value
difference between the NBB and NBO during regular trading hours where
each instance of a unique NBB and NBO is weighted by the length of time
that the quote prevailed as the NBB or NBO.

    (b) Minimum pricing increments (MPIs). No national securities
exchange, national securities association, alternative trading system,
vendor, or broker or dealer shall display, rank, accept from any
person, or execute a bid or offer, an order, or an indication of
interest in any NMS stock priced in an increment smaller than the
applicable increment required by paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
    (c) MPIs for orders priced equal to or greater than $1.00. Except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the minimum increment for
any bid or offer, order, or indication of interest or trade in any NMS
stock priced equal to or greater than $1.00 shall be:
    (1) No smaller than $0.001, if the time weighted average quoted
spread for the NMS stock during the Evaluation Period was equal to, or
less than, $0.008;
    (2) No smaller than $0.002, if the time weighted average quoted
spread for the NMS stock during the Evaluation Period was greater than
$0.008 but less than, or equal to, $0.016;
    (3) No smaller than $0.005, if the time weighted average quoted
spread for the NMS stock during the Evaluation Period was greater than
$0.016 but less than, or equal to, $0.04;
    (4) No smaller than $0.01, if the time weighted average quoted
spread for the NMS stock during the Evaluation Period was greater than
$0.04.
    (d) MPIs for orders priced less than $1.00. Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, the minimum increment for any bid or
offer, order, or indication of interest for an NMS stock that is priced
less than $1.00 per share shall be no smaller than $0.0001.
    (e) Exceptions. (1) Orders that execute at, but are not explicitly
priced at, the midpoint between the national best bid and the national
best offer or the midpoint between the best protected bid and the best
protected offer; and
    (2) Orders that execute at a price that was not based, directly or
indirectly, on the quoted price of an NMS stock at the time of
execution and for which the material terms were not reasonably
determinable at the time the commitment to execute the order was made.
    (f) Exemptions. The Commission, by order, may exempt from the
provisions of this section, either unconditionally or on specified
terms and conditions, any person, security, quotation, or order, or any
class or classes of persons, securities, quotations, or orders, if the
Commission determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of
investors.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 14, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27616 Filed 12-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8123-8125]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0127; Notice 1]

Graco Children's Products, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Graco Children's Products, Inc. (Graco), has determined that
certain Graco Milestone child restraints

manufactured between July 9, 2015 and October 6, 2015, do not fully
comply with paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Graco filed a report
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Graco then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556
requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is March 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Graco submitted a petition for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Graco's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 8,240
Graco Milestone child restraints manufactured between July 9, 2015 and
October 2, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: Graco explains that the noncompliance is due to
a labeling issue. The labels on the subject child restraints do not
contain the phrase ``Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's
child restraint anchorage system,if available, or with a vehicle belt''
as required by paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of FMVSS No. 213.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of FMVSS No. 213 requires
in pertinent part:

    S5.5.2 The information specified in paragraphs (a) through (m)
of this section shall be stated in the English language and lettered
in letters and numbers that are not smaller than 10 point type.
Unless otherwise specified, the information shall be labeled on a
white background with black text. Unless written in all capitals,
the information shall be stated in sentence capitalization. . . .
    (g) The statements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2):
    (1) A heading as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i), with the
statement ``WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur,''
capitalized as written and followed by bulleted statements in the
following order: . . .
    (ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child
restraint anchorage system if available or with a vehicle belt. [For
car beds, harnesses, and belt positioning boosters, the first part
of the statement regarding attachment by the child restraint
attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is optional]. . .
.

    V. Summary of Graco's Analyses: Graco stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    (1) Graco stated that the noncompliant label provides visual
pictograms showing the rear-facing child restraint being secured using
the child restraint anchorage system and using a vehicle belt (both
with a lap only seat belt and lap/shoulder seat belt). This pictogram
is located on the same label just below where the omitted phrase is
required to be, and provides the same substance as the language
required by FMVSS No. 213.
    (2) Graco also stated that in addition to the pictograms that
describe how to secure the child restraint in the vehicle using the
child restraint anchorage system and the vehicle belt, the printed
instruction manual provided with the subject child restraints includes
written step-by-step installation procedures. The manual also describes
why and how to secure the child restraint in rear-facing and forward-
facing modes using the child restraint anchorage system as well as the
vehicle seat belt systems. The instruction manual additionally includes
multiple prominently placed safety warning regarding the need to secure
the child restraint with the child restraint anchorage system or the
vehicle seat belt.
    (3) Graco stated its belief that the consumers generally
understanding that child restraints must be installed/secured a
vehicle's seat to be effective. Graco also stated its belief that with
respect to labels and instructions, consumers are often drawn first to
illustrations and pictograms.
    (4) Graco also stated its belief that the absence of the omitted
phrase from the label does not affect the crashworthiness of the child
restraint system.
    Graco has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that future production of the subject child restraints
will comply with all applicable labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
    In summation, Graco believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject child restraints is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition, to exempt Graco from providing recall
notification of the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to
remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this
petition only applies to the subject child restraints that Graco no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraints under their
control after Graco notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-03202 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75800]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-595-000 ]

Covanta Fairfax, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Covanta Fairfax, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 29, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29706 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Tribes in Michigan

Consultation on Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

Request for Ozone Redesignation

September 26, 2006

EPA Participants:

Cheryl Newton, ARD

John Mooney, ARD

Kathleen D’Agostino, ARD

Stephanie Cheaney, ARD

Rodger Field, ORC

Don de Blasio, OPA

Jennifer Manville, IEO

Tribal Participants:

David Jones, Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians

Jeremy Howe, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

Rachel Schwarz, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

Mark Parrish, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians

Dwight Sargent, Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan (via telephone)

Andy Knott, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (via
telephone)

Summary of Meeting:

After introductions, the participants discussed the purpose for the
meeting.  On June 15, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas under
the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  As
required by Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), EPA
designated as non-attainment any area that was violating the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of air quality data,
2001-2003.  At this time, several areas in Michigan were designated as
non-attainment.  EPA stated that it received requests from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to redesignate certain of
these counties from “non-attainment” to “attainment” for ozone
pursuant to Section 107(d)(3) on May 9, 2006 and June 13, 2006.
Together, the requests for redesignation cover the following counties in
Michigan: Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Kent, Ottawa, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Van
Buren, Huron, Mason, Benzie, Lapeer, Genesee, Muskegon, Berrien, and
Cass.

Under the Act, EPA must act upon these requests within 18 months from
when they were received.  EPA understands that Tribes in Michigan have
expressed interest in these redesignation requests.  Therefore, the
purpose of the meeting is to give the Tribes an opportunity to express
any concerns or issues which they may have with respect to the
redesignation of these areas and for EPA to provide information about
the redesignation process.  Cheryl Newton also noted that today’s
meeting is part of a regulatory process, and a summary of the meeting
would be included in the record for EPA’s rulemaking action.

Jeremy Howe began the meeting by providing a presentation that analyzed
the data related to ozone in western Michigan as it related to MDEQ’s
requests.  Some of the primary concerns with the MDEQ redesignation
package as set forth in his presentation include: (1) high ozone levels
are not the result of local sources; (2) proposed MDEQ maintenance plan
only addresses local sources; (3) low ozone readings in 2004 are due to
weather and are a statistical outlier.  Howe stated that the Little
River Band is not opposed to redesignation.  He suggested, however, that
additional data is desirable and redesignation is premature.

After Howe’s presentation, there was discussion on these and a number
of other issues related to the redesignation request:

Non-Local Sources of Ozone in Western Michigan

Tribal participants raised the issue that high ozone levels are not the
result of local sources.  It was agreed that that the overwhelming cause
of ozone in western Michigan could be attributed to sources outside of
Michigan.  EPA pointed out that under the Clean Air Act, the designation
of an area as “non-attainment” meant that a state must take certain
steps to improve air quality.  The steps that a state can take are
generally limited to actions that can be taken within the state’s
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, when, as in the case of western Michigan,
the sources of pollution are from outside the state, the ways to address
the sources under the Act are more complicated.

Tribal participants asked what policies and rules have been developed by
the EPA to address the generalized regional transport of ozone affecting
non-attainment areas.  EPA answered that major actions include the NOx
SIP Call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule.  These initiatives will have
the effect of improving air quality across the eastern half of the
country.  In addition, states always have the ability to file a petition
under section 126 of the Act, to address the control of sources outside
of the state’s jurisdiction.

Designation of an area as non-attainment requires greater controls on
local sources of pollution, but the designation process is not always
the best way to address situations where the sources of pollution are
elsewhere.  However, due to the national initiatives and actions being
taken in, upwind areas, including the Chicago-Gary and Milwaukee areas,
EPA believes the trend across the region is a decrease in ozone
precursors.

Where supported by the record, redesignation is beneficial for economics
and the environment because growth is not concentrated in certain areas.
 It indicates that the health-based standards in the Act are being met.

Data Issues

Tribal participants raised the issue that low ozone readings in 2004 are
due to weather and are a statistical outlier.  EPA explained that the
Act allows for the redesignation of an area to attainment if that area,
among other things, has attained the NAAQS.  The 8-hour ozone NAAQS was
promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking and it was through
this process that any concerns or objections regarding the standard
should have been addressed.  EPA must make its determination regarding
whether an area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with
this promulgated standard found at 40 CFR 50.10 and Part 50, Appendix I.
 For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS if there are no violations based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data.  To
attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor
within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.  Based on the
rounding convention described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, the
standard is attained if the design value is 0.084ppm or below.  The data
must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58,
and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).  The
monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the
duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

The redesignation requests submitted by MDEQ included ozone monitoring
data showing attainment of the NAAQS for the 2003-2005 ozone seasons.
(For six of the areas, monitoring data showing attainment for 2002-2004
ozone seasons was also included.)  Additionally, preliminary monitoring
data for 2006 shows that the areas continue to attain the NAAQS for the
2004-2006 time period

Maintenance Plan

Tribal participants raised the issue that MDEQ maintenance plan only
addresses local sources.  EPA agreed that MDEQ’s maintenance plan only
has jurisdiction within the state boundaries and would address actions
within the state’s control.  Overall, EPA believes that the
contingency measures included in the current MDEQ requests are stronger
than in previous submissions.  A maintenance plan, which is approved at
the same time as the redesignation of an area to attainment, must
demonstrate that the area being redesignated to attainment can maintain
the standard at least ten years after the area has been redesignated.
The state must also commit to updating the maintenance plan eight years
after redesignation to ensure maintenance of the standard for an
additional ten years.

Tribal participants questioned what would happen if a county were to
show non-attainment again in the future.  If non-attainment levels are
reached, the State would select options from the maintenance plan.  If
the ozone levels exceed the standard after redesignation to attainment,
the NOx exemption could be lifted, but areas would not be subject to
182(f) of the Act, which only applies in non-attainment areas.  Although
the Agency has some flexibility in how to address this situation, it is
likely that EPA would allow the violation to be addressed through the
maintenance plan, as was provided for under the Act.

Timing

Tribal participants raised the issue that it was premature to approve
MDEQ’s request.  EPA explained that the Act requires EPA to respond to
the redesignation request within 18 months.  EPA would be reviewing the
requests based on Agency guidance and regulations.  If the data met
these requirements, EPA did not see a basis for delaying a
determination.

Section 126

Tribal participants asked why the maintenance plan did not include an
option to petition the Administrator to address emission sources from
another jurisdiction under Section 126 of the Act.  EPA responded that a
state always retains a right under Section 126 to submit a petition to
the Administrator.  However, that option would not typically be part of
a maintenance plan which addresses local measures.  It was also noted
that in Region 5, other states, notably Illinois, were making efforts to
control emission sources.

Air Monitoring

There was some discussion of the air monitoring network in western
Michigan.  In general, it is not expected that there will be significant
changes to the monitoring network currently in place.  A review of the
monitoring network was recently competed, and any changes to the network
must be approved by EPA.  There is nothing in the redesignation request
that would impact the existing monitoring network.

David Jones mentioned that tribes have requested funding for monitors to
obtain ozone data; however, EPA has not funded these requests.  EPA
responded that the EPA is reducing monitoring networks to reduce
redundancy and given limited available funds, we have to look carefully
at our priorities.

Public Health Information

Tribal participants indicated that a fundamental concern about
“non-attainment” status and monitoring is the need to deliver clear
health information to tribal populations.  Tribes do not wish to convey
a false sense of complacency to tribal members from the fact that an
area is considered “attainment”.  EPA stated that it understood the
need to convey public health impact information.  Monitoring is just one
way to do that.  The Agency is willing to explore other methods to
convey the public health message based on existing data.   For example,
Air Now allows for updated information for health warnings such as Ozone
Action Days.  EPA offered to work with Tribes to develop public
education and outreach tools.

NOX Waivers

EPA clarified that there are limited waivers in place for reasonably
available control technology controls that would have been required for
major sources of NOx under section 182(f) of the Act.  However, these
waivers do not exempt sources from construction permitting under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, the NOx SIP call, or
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

Procedures for Making Determination

EPA advised the Tribal participants that after we complete our review, a
notice of EPA’s determination would be published in the Federal
Register.  We agreed to notify the Tribes of our action.  Tribes will
have the opportunity to formally comment during this process.  EPA will
review and respond to all comments received.

Tribal participants inquired as to what appeal options are available to
Tribes or others if there is a disagreement with the Agency’s
decision. EPA stated that redesignation will be a final Agency action,
published in the Federal Register, and would be subject to judicial
review within 60 days of the date of notice of action in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Act.

Other Issues

 EPA will review the whole package for approvability, including whether
the State is following its public participation procedures; however, EPA
does not pass judgment regarding the thoroughness or quality of
states’ responses to comments received during their public process.

EPA has not consulted LADCO staff regarding the redesignation process,
nor do we believe that it would be appropriate for us to do so.

Next Steps

Air Division will look into the following items and provide information
to the tribes: (1) ability for tribes and others to petition EPA to
designate violating counties as non-attainment; (2) tribal authority to
petition EPA under CAA Section 126; (3) EPA authority under Section
110(a)(2)(D) for addressing out of state sources.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5