                          Public Comment Submissions
                       C&D Recycling Superfund Site
                Notice of Intent to Delete (82 FR 60946-60947)
                   Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0327

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0343
Tracking Number: 1k1-90l4-ual4
Posted: 01/02/2018
Can I review a list of homeowners wells that were tested for heavy metals within the radius of test area (and the distance of that radius area), and when they were last tested.

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0345
Tracking Number: 1k2-90yo-jhh7
Posted: 01/22/2018
The National Environmental Policy Act was passed by Congress in 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970 as the first key environmental statute. The Act reflected a widespread public desire to address concerns over the worsening state of the environment. Today, environmental impact statements and environmental assessments are a routine part of the planning for any project undertaken by the Federal Government or that requires Federal approval. the economic considerations are not always (should be) a major factor as agencies evaluate NEPA and the other environmental Acts. The environment has become a battleground of activists from big cities where you cannot drink the water or trash on enter city streets or foreign nations trying to stop American workers. Somehow we have become a country in receivership, with the courts managing our forests, our rivers and our range lands. it's not just that the courts are directly involved in managing many of our resources, they are indirectly managing all of them in our states because of the fear of litigation, not just because of actual litigation. It is not a good environmental policy where the courts make decisions on how to use the lands of America.

The original goal of NEPA and many other environmental statutes was to forge a Federal/state partnership in protecting the environment. In NEPA, state and local governments were to have an essential part in determining the environmental and societal impacts of Federal actions. States have often found themselves at odds with the Federal Government when the issue involves public land, an issue that is critically important to western states. This is not what Congress intended when it began the environmental decade. It asks and calls on the agencies to look before they leap, to plan and make decisions in a sound and wise way, with the stated purpose of understanding the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, taking words from the purpose clause. It goes on to say that it's the policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with state and local governments and other concerned public and private organizations, to create and maintain conditions under which we can exist to fulfill social, economic and other requirements of the present and future generations. The impact and the intent have been diminished considerably over the years. we have much to gain in finding common ground to find a stable economic future our people.

NEPA was a good piece of legislation that has lost its way during implementation.
NEPA is not the problem so much as the implementation of the Act. It takes too long, it costs too much, it's spawns unending litigation, and it is so inconsistently implemented that each agency of the Federal Government has its own custom tailoring of an approach. if we could simply require the Federal Government to be consistent and speak with one voice. We have to change the confusing and contradictory regulations used by the Federal agencies to implement NEPA. In other words, it's not the Act, it's the actors. The Act is intended to require Federal, state and private actions that are comprehensive, with better planning, that have an intergenerational view in their effect and strike a wholesome balance between the environment and the economy. Quoting from the Act itself, 1022(a), which discusses the fact that we are looking at the impact on the human environment, the human environment is cited several times in the regulations of the CEQ and the economy has to be a factor in that overall human environment; after all, poverty and loss of community are definitely part of the human environment. the importance of a stronger role for state and local governments is what I would emphasize. Somehow the past administration twisted the meaning without regard to local community economic damage of bad rules.

Regulations implementing the Act at CFR 1508.5 are clear that a state or local government may, by agreement, with the lead agency, become a cooperating agency. Frankly, considering NEPA's mandate and the authority granted in Federal regulation to allow state and local cooperation through agreement, cooperator status for state and local governments should occur routinely.' In fact, in past administration it did not, total lack of consideration.

Two sections of the CEQ regulations that allow for the appointment of joint lead agencies with the states as a joint lead agency and also a reference in 1506.2(c) that says, State and local governments shall be designated as joint lead agencies in those appropriate areas. In fact, that did not occur at all, let alone routinely. Clearly, the shortcomings with NEPA are in the application, not in the purpose. Agencies have much too much of their focus on fake science, rules producing litigation- proof documents, and not enough concern about involving people in the process.

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0346
Tracking Number: 1k2-90z5-7swj
Posted: 01/22/2018
NEPA Recommendation. First, involve right people, replace Obama administration people, which means including local and state governments from the beginning. But Quite often in past administration, Federal agency officials update on actions they've already taken or will take. The states are partners in natural resource management and rather than being updated, they should be included in the planning and the evaluation process to ensure that our people are represented in the spirit in which NEPA was enacted.

States were not created by the Federal Government; rather, Federal Government was created by states. States have governing responsibilities under law that cannot and should not be set aside. Clearly, States have shared and concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal agency managers. When U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management oversee the land management responsibilities they have, the states have primacy over wildlife management, air quality, water quality, solid waste disposal, and water rights management on those very same lands. In other words, States have a joint or shared responsibility that requires full partnership, not just a close relationship. Mutual respect and benefit characterize a partnership. Take the handcuffs off the states.

First recommendation; focuses on the need to be partners with state and local governments. We need to help people on land feel good about stewardship in control of their choices so they can pass something along to their children that's better than what they receive show in plain and simple actions that the environment, the economy, and the community are compatible. The citizens are tired of the judicial gridlock and they're feeling left out of the process. They are willing and able to participate. Local government involvement, particularly early in the process, can greatly reduce conflicts in litigation, which is an extraordinary cost to our government.
Second recommendation; is that coordination among and within agencies has to be improved. We have duplication of environmental analyses, to detriment of process and expense of Federal Government. We could redirect many of our financial resources if they were only better utilized. Poor coordination among the project proponents, lead agencies, and third parties that are hired to conduct the analysis does not always occur.

Third Recommendation: inconsistencies among and within agencies have to be reduced. We have Forest Service management on permit allotments in some states. where one forest requires only grazing allotment holder to do oversight, second forest requires officials only in the Forest Service to do the monitoring, and the third forest allows the policy to change from district to district. Again, the Federal agencies must speak with one voice.

Fourth Recommendation: training of Federal agency personnel needs to be improved and increased. Word is not getting from the CEQ regulations down to field. Even the CEQ regulations very clearly cover economic and community impact and participation of the states; yet, it's not at all implemented at the local level. There has to be a recognition of that legitimate role for state and local government. Even understanding the difference between EAs and EIS's is not even clear down at the local level. There need to be consistency and reasonable alternatives, clear, concise documents that use plain language and limits on the volume of the paperwork. In the words of the CEQ regulation, the goal is to be analytic, not encyclopedic. More meeting with local community and training.

Fifth Recommendation; there must be real scientific, substantive basis for asking for how to manage so that we avoid the endless inquiries and unnecessary data collection. Use of adaptive management, which National Academy of Sciences calls process where management and research are combined so that the projects are specifically designed to reveal causal relationships between interventions and outcomes to maximize learning. Regulations should be built upon adaptive management and trust. Make a decision based upon the best information at that time, don't try to cover every possible contingency. You can always ask one more question that starts off with ''what if.'' Make the decision, get underway and monitor the performance and if there is impact, adapt to correct the problem. Use accurate science and modern technology and train the people to be objective. The opportunity is there to be cooperation and coordination among the various parts.

Six Recombination: Amend NEPA to specifically require Federal agencies to cooperate with states and counties. Innovative environmental policies come about when states can act as laboratories of democracy. States are important in the Federal/state environmental partnership because there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all government. The states, where government is closer to the people, are the proper entities to implement environmental laws and policies.

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0347
Tracking Number: 1k2-9133-hyln
Posted: 01/24/2018
In paragraph two of the Introduction, the "Final Close Out Report" states that "The Site has been cleaned to allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, with no Institutional Controls (ICs), Operation and Maintenance (O&M) or Five-Year Reviews required."

Paragraph two of the section labeled "Site Completion Criteria" in the "Final Close Out Report" refers to deed restrictions placed on the C&D property. It states, "Though still in place, these restrictions are not required under the ROD." Can you confirm that the deed restrictions have had no influence on the level of clean up at the site, and that the site has been cleaned to allow for "unrestricted use and unlimited exposure" as stated in the "Final Close Out Report"?

Comment ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002-0348
Tracking Number: 1k2-9137-c918
Posted: 01/29/2018
Let's all take a day off from worrying about pollution to visit Tiny Hands National Park, where visitors from all over the world flock to marvel at President Impeachment Bait's tiny grabbers.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2347-2349]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0021]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County, MD and King
George County, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of persons, and the marine environment from the
potential safety hazards associated with construction operations at the
new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial
(US-301) Bridge, which will occur from 8 p.m. on January 15, 2022
through 8 p.m. on January 22, 2022. This rule will prohibit persons and
vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. on January 15, 2022 until 8
p.m. on January 22, 2022 .

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0021 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
Sec.  Section
TFR Temporary Final Rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On January 5, 2022, Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture, notified
the Coast Guard that the company will be setting structural steel
sections across the federal navigation channel at the new Governor
Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301)
Bridge. The bridge contractor stated the work required to set
structural steel across the channel, originally scheduled to occur in
November 2021, and rescheduled to December 2021, was scheduled to occur
from January 3, 2022, through January 15, 2022. However, the unexpected
and unprecedented impacts to the southern Maryland and northern
Virginia region from the major snow storm on January 3, 2022 halted
operations and caused additional delays. The work is now scheduled to
occur from January 11, 2022, through January 22, 2022. The work
described by the contractor requires the movement in and anchoring at
multiple points of a large crane barge within the federal navigation
channel. This crane can accommodate all of the steel to be hoisted and
placed, which will streamline the operation by avoiding multiple
reloads of steel and reducing the time in the channel by multiple days.
This operation will impede vessels requiring the use of the channel.
Note, the Coast Guard has previously issued other temporary safety
zones at this location for placement of fender ring elements in
association with construction of the new bridge (USCG-2021-0127; USCG-
2021-0650; USCG-2021-0745; and USCG-2021-0906).
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. Construction operations involving
large crane heavy lifts at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator
Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge must occur within the
federal navigation channel. Immediate action is needed to respond to
the potential safety hazards associated with bridge construction.
Hazards from the construction operations include low-hanging or falling
ropes, cables, large piles and cement cast portions, dangerous
projectiles, and or other debris. We must establish this safety zone by
January 15, 2022 to guard against these hazards.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with construction operations at the new Governor
Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge
to be conducted within the federal navigation channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with bridge construction starting January
15, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within the federal
navigation channel at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas
``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge construction site. This rule
is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being
constructed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 p.m. on
January 15, 2022, through 8 p.m. on January 22, 2022. The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters of the Potomac River encompassed by a
line connecting the following points beginning at 38[deg]21'50.96'' N,
076[deg]59'22.04'' W, thence south to 38[deg]21'43.08'' N,
076[deg]59'20.55'' W, thence west to 38[deg]21'41.00'' N,
076[deg]59'34.90'' W, thence north to 38[deg]21'48.90'' N,
076[deg]59'36.80'' W, and east back to the beginning point, located
between Charles County, MD and King George County, VA.
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while structural steel is
being set across the federal navigation channel at the new Governor
Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301)
Bridge.
    Except for marine equipment and vessels operated by Skanska-Corman-
McLean, Joint Venture, or its

subcontractors, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-
National Capital Region or a designated representative.
    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region will notify the public
that the safety zone will be enforced by all appropriate means to the
affected segments of the public, as practicable, in accordance with 33
CFR 165.7(a).

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size and duration
of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone is approximately 450
yards in width and 270 yards in length. We anticipate that there will
be no vessels that are unable to conduct business. Excursion vessels
and commercial fishing vessels are not impacted by this rulemaking.
Excursion vessels do not operate in this area, and commercial fishing
vessels are not impacted because of their draft. Some towing vessels
may be impacted, but bridge project personnel have been conducting
outreach throughout the project in order to coordinate with those
vessels. Vessel traffic not required to use the navigation channel will
be able to safely transit around the safety zone. Such vessels may be
able to transit to the east or the west of the federal navigation
channel, as similar vertical clearance and water depth exist under the
next bridge span to the east and west. This safety zone will impact a
small designated area of the Potomac River for 8 days, but coincides
with the non-peak season for recreational boating.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone lasting 7 total days that will prohibit entry
within a portion of the Potomac River. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0021 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0021  Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County,
MD and King George County, VA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Potomac River, encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 38[deg]21'50.96'' N, 076[deg]59'22.04''
W, thence south to 38[deg]21'43.08'' N, 076[deg]59'20.55'' W, thence
west to 38[deg]21'41.00'' N, 076[deg]59'34.90'' W, thence north to
38[deg]21'48.90'' N, 076[deg]59'36.80'' W, and east back to the
beginning point, located between Charles County, MD and King George
County, VA. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 83.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    Marine equipment means any vessel, barge or other equipment
operated by Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture, or its
subcontractors.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, except for marine equipment, you may not enter
the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. The section will be enforced from 8 p.m. on
January 15, 2022, through 8 p.m. on January 22, 2022.

    Dated: January 10, 2022.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-00705 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61050-61052]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting

October 12, 2006.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C
552b:.

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: October 19, 2006, 10 a.m.

Place:  Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Status:  Open.

Matters to be Considered:  Agenda.

    Note: Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Telephone
(202) 502-8400. For a recorded listing item stricken from or added to
the meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all papers relevant to the items on the
agenda; however, all public documents may be examined in the Public
Reference Room.

                                                 909th--Meeting
                                  [Regular Meeting, October 19, 2006, 10 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                     Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Administrative Agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................  AD02-1-000......................  Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2.....................  AD02-7-000......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                             Operations.
A-3.....................  AD06-3-000......................  Energy Market Update.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................  RM06-16-000.....................  Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
                                                             System.
E-2.....................  RM06-10-000.....................  New PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations Applicable to
                                                             Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities.
E-3.....................  RR06-3-000......................  North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
E-4.....................  EL07-1-000......................  California Independent System Operator Corp.
                          EL07-2-000......................  ISO New England, Inc.
                          EL07-3-000......................  PJM Interconnection, LLC.
                          EL07-4-000......................  Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
                          EL07-5-000......................   Inc.
                          EL07-6-000......................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
                                                            Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-5.....................  ER06-94-001.....................  ISO New England Inc.
                          ER06-94-003.....................
                          EL06-77-000.....................
                          EL06-77-002.....................
E-6.....................  PL06-4-001......................  Informal Staff Advice on Regulatory Requirements.
E-7.....................  EC06-125-000....................  National Grid plc.
                          EL06-85-000.....................  KeySpan Corporation.
E-8.....................  EC06-127-000....................  Northwestern Corporation.
                                                            NorthWestern Energy Marketing, LLC.
                                                            The Clark Fork and Blackfoot, LLC.
                                                            Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited.
                                                            BBI U.S. Holdings Pty Ltd.
                                                            BBI U.S. Holdings II Corp.
                                                            BBI Glacier Corp.
E-9.....................  ER06-1384-000...................  Entergy-Koch Trading, LP.
                          ER01-2781-004...................
E-10....................  ER06-1464-000...................  ISO New England Inc.
                                                            New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
E-11....................  ER06-1443-000...................  Pennsylvania Power Company.
                          ER06-1443-001...................  FirstEnergy Service Company.
                                                            Metropolitan Edison Company.
                                                            Pennsylvania Electric Company.
                                                            The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
                                                            Ohio Edison Company.
                                                            The Toledo Electric Company.

E-12....................  EC06-126-000....................  Boston Edison Company.
                                                            Cambridge Electric Light Company.
                                                            Commonwealth Electric Company.
                                                            Canal Electric Company.
E-13....................  EC06-144-000....................  Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc.
                                                            EBG Holdings, LLC.
                                                            Boston Generating, LLC.
                                                            Mystic I, LLC.
                                                            Mystic Development, LLC.
                                                            Fore River Development, LLC.
E-14....................  EC06-147-000....................  Entegra Power Group LLC.
                                                            Gila River Power, L.P.
                                                            Union Power Partners, L.P.
                                                            Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
                                                            Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
E-15....................  EC06-154-000....................  Northeast Generation Company.
                                                            Holyoke Water Power Company.
                                                            NU Enterprises, Inc.
                                                            Select Energy, Inc.
                                                            NE Energy, Inc.
                                                            Mt. Tom Generating Company LLC.
                                                            ECP Energy, LLC.
E-16....................  ER06-1094-010...................  Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (Long Sault Division).
E-17....................  ER03-647-008....................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-18....................  ER06-729-001....................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-19....................  OMITTED.........................
E-20....................  EL06-75-000.....................  Alcoa Inc.
E-21....................  EL06-89-000.....................  Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. v.
                                                             California Independent System Operator Corporation.
E-22....................  TS06-11-000.....................  Wabash Valley Power Association.
E-23....................  TS06-13-000.....................  American Transmission Company LLC.
E-24....................  EL05-15-001.....................  Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation v. Entergy
                                                             Arkansas, Inc.
E-25....................  ER04-928-002....................  Public Utilities with Existing Contracts in the
                                                             California Independent System Operator Corporation
                                                             Region.
                          ER02-1656-028...................  California Independent System Operator Corporation.
E-26....................  ER06-451-005....................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
                          ER06-1047-001...................
                          ER06-451-006....................
                          ER05-1047-002...................
E-27....................  RM04-12-002.....................  Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public
                                                             Utilities including RTOs.
E-28....................  ER02-2189-002...................  Southern California Edison Company.
                          ER02-2189-003...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-1.....................  RM06-11-000.....................  Financial Accounting, Reporting and Records
                                                             Retention Requirements Under the Public Utility
                                                             Holding Company Act of 2005.
M-2.....................  RM06-25-000.....................  Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 60.
M-3.....................  RM96-1-027......................  Standards for Business Practices of Interstate
                          RM05-5-001......................   Natural Gas Pipelines.
                                                            Standards for Business Practices and Communication
                                                             Protocols for Public Utilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.....................  RP04-274-000....................  Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
G-2.....................  OMITTED.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................  OMITTED.........................
H-2.....................  P-382-034.......................  Southern California Edison Company.
H-3.....................  P-20-072........................  PacifiCorp.
H-4.....................  P-2030-048......................  Portland General Electric Company and Confederated
                                                             Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
H-5.....................  P-12462-009.....................  Indian River Power Supply, LLC.
H-6.....................  P-5018-011......................  Wellesley Rosewood Maynard Mills, L.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................  RM06-7-000......................  Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and
                                                             Clarification Regarding Rates.

C-2.....................  RM06-1-000......................  Regulations Implementing the Energy Policy Act of
                                                             2005; Coordinating the Processing of Federal
                                                             Authorizations for Applications under Sections 3
                                                             and 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Maintaining a
                                                             Complete Consolidated Record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this

event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of

Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact

Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 [FR Doc. E6-17322 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4347-4348]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1427]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing
and Importing of Juice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
February 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0466.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Procedures for the
Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Juice--21 CFR Part 120
(OMB Control Number 0910-0466)--Extension

    FDA regulations in part 120 (21 CFR part 120) mandate the
application of HACCP principles to the processing of fruit and
vegetable juices. HACCP is a preventive system of hazard control
designed to help ensure the safety of foods. The regulations were
issued under FDA's statutory authority to regulate food safety under
section 402(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(4)). Under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, a
food is adulterated if it is prepared, packed, or held under insanitary
conditions whereby it may have been contaminated with filth or rendered
injurious to health. The Agency also has authority under section 361 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) to issue and enforce
regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of
communicable diseases from one State, territory, or possession to
another, or from outside the United States into this country. Under
section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), FDA is authorized to
issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of that act.
    The rationale in establishing an HACCP system of preventive
controls is to design and check the process so that the final product
is not contaminated--not test for contamination after it may have taken
place. Under HACCP,

processors of fruit and vegetable juices establish and follow a
preplanned sequence of operations and observations (the HACCP plan)
designed to avoid or eliminate one or more specific food hazards, and
thereby ensure that their products are safe, wholesome, and not
adulterated; in compliance with section 402 of the FD&C Act.
Information development and recordkeeping are essential parts of any
HACCP system. The information collection requirements are narrowly
tailored to focus on the development of appropriate controls and
document those aspects of processing that are critical to food safety.
    In the Federal Register of November 20, 2013 (78 FR 69689), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of                     Average burden
        21 CFR section             Number of      records per    Total annual          per          Total hours
                                 recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120.6(c) and 120.12(a)(1) and            1,875             365         684,375  0.1 (8 minutes).          68,438
 (b); Require written
 monitoring and correction
 records for Sanitation
 Standard Operating Procedures
 (SSOPs).
120.7 and 120.12(a)(2), (b)              2,300             1.1           2,530  20..............          50,600
 and (c); Require written
 hazard analysis of food
 hazards.
120.8(b)(7) and                          1,450          14,600      21,170,000  0.01 (1 minute).         211,700
 120.12(a)(4)(i) and (b);
 Require a recordkeeping
 system that documents
 monitoring of the critical
 control points and other
 measurements as prescribed in
 the HACCP plan.
120.10(c) and 120.12(a)(4)(ii)           1,840              12          22,080  0.1 (8 minutes).           2,208
 and (b); Require that all
 corrective actions taken in
 response to a deviation from
 a critical limit be
 documented.
120.11(a)(1)(iv) and (a)(2),             1,840              52          95,680  0.1 (8 minutes).           9,568
 120.12(a)(5); Require records
 showing that process
 monitoring instruments are
 properly calibrated and that
 end-product or in-process
 testing is performed in
 accordance with written
 procedures.
120.11(b) and 120.12(a)(5) and           1,840               1           1,840  4...............           7,360
 (b); Require that every
 processor record the
 validation that the HACCP
 plan is adequate to control
 food hazards that are likely
 to occur.
120.14(a)(2), (c), and (d);                308               1             308  4...............           1,232
 Require that importers of
 fruit or vegetable juices, or
 their products used as
 ingredients in beverages,
 have written procedures to
 ensure that the food is
 processed in accordance with
 our regulations in part 120.
120.11(c) and 120.12(a)(5) and           1,840               1           1,840  4...............           7,360
 (b); Require documentation of
 revalidation of the hazard
 analysis upon any changes
 that might affect the
 original hazard analysis
 (applies when a firm does not
 have an HACCP plan because
 the original hazard analysis
 did not reveal hazards likely
 to occur).
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................         358,466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Table 1 provides our estimate of the total annual recordkeeping
burden of our regulations in part 120. We base our estimate of the
average burden per recordkeeping on our experience with the application
of HACCP principles in food processing. We base our estimate of the
number of recordkeepers on our estimate of the total number of juice
manufacturing plants affected by the regulations (plants identified in
our official establishment inventory plus very small apple juice and
very small orange juice manufacturers). These estimates assume that
every processor will prepare sanitary standard operating procedures and
an HACCP plan and maintain the associated monitoring records, and that
every importer will require product safety specifications. In fact,
there are likely to be some small number of juice processors that,
based upon their hazard analysis, determine that they are not required
to have an HACCP plan under these regulations.

    Dated: January 22, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-01462 Filed 1-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6218-6223]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02183]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94097; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2022-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 114 and Section 118 of the Fee Schedule

January 28, 2022.
    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 January 27, 2022, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's pricing schedule at
Equity 7, Section 114 and Section 118, as described further below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Section 114 and Section 118(a).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) amend the Exchange's Tier 1
rebate to Qualified Market Maker (``QMM'') at Equity 7, Section 114(e);
(2) amend a supplemental credit in Tapes A, B and C for displayed
quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail
Orders); (3) amend certain supplemental credits for displayed quotes/
orders (other than Supplemental Orders) in Tapes A, B and C and (4)
allow members to receive the higher rebate when the member's non-
Designated Retail Order rebate is greater than its Designated Retail
Order rebate.
Changes to Section 114
    The Exchange proposes to amend its pricing schedule, at Equity 7,
Section 114(e), to make a change to its Qualified Market Maker
(``QMM'') Program. The QMM Program provides supplemental incentives to
member organizations that meet certain quality standards in acting as
market makers for securities on the Exchange.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adjust the threshold to also
allow a QMM to qualify for the Tier 1 incentive if the QMM executes
shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of
its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 70 million shares of
average daily volume during the month (inclusive of volume and
Consolidated Volume \3\ that consists of securities priced less than
$1). Therefore, the amended Tier 1 incentive would provide a $0.0001
supplemental credit if a QMM executes shares of liquidity provided in
all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs
that represent above 0.70% up to, and including, 0.90% of Consolidated
Volume or 70 million shares of average daily volume during the month
(inclusive of volume and Consolidated Volume that consists of
securities priced less than $1). The Exchange intends for the
additional threshold to provide greater incentives to members during
times when the market is trading at a higher than usual daily
volume.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 114(h), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' shares the meaning of that term set forth in
Equity 7, Section 118(a). (For purposes of calculating a member's
qualifications for Tiers 1 and 2 of the QMM Program credits set
forth in paragraph (e) of this Section, the Exchange will calculate
a member's volume and total Consolidated Volume twice. First, the
Exchange will calculate a member's volume and total Consolidated
Volume inclusive of volume that consists of executions in securities
priced less than $1. Second, the Exchange will calculate a member's
volume and total Consolidated Volume exclusive of volume that
consists of executions in securities priced less than $1, while also
applying distinct qualifying volume thresholds to each Tier, as set
forth above in paragraph (e). The Exchange will then assess which of
these two calculations would qualify the member for the most
advantageous credits for the month and then it will apply those
credits to the member.)
    \4\ The proposal provides a third alternative for members to
qualify for the Tier 1 rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to Section 118
    The Exchange currently provides a $0.0001 per share supplemental
credit to members for displayed quotes/orders that provide liquidity
(other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) where the
members, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, (i)
increases its shares of liquidity provided in all securities by at
least 30% as a percentage of Consolidated Volume \5\ during the month
relative to the month of October 2021 and (ii) has shares of liquidity
provided of least 15 million ADV during the month. The Exchange now
proposes to amend the threshold to allow a member to qualify if the
member increases its shares of liquidity provided in all securities by
at least 30% relative to the month of October 2021 or November 2021.
The Exchange hopes that it will incentivize members to increase their
liquidity providing activity on the Exchange by giving members the
option of an additional month of Consolidated Volume to measure their
liquidity against, which the Exchange hopes will improve market
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 118(a), the term
``Consolidated Volume'' shall mean the total consolidated volume
reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity
securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one
round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the
extent of a member's trading activity the date of the annual
reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be excluded
from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's trading
activity. For the purposes of calculating the extent of a member's
trading activity during the month on Nasdaq and determining the
charges and credits applicable to such member's activity, all M-ELO
Orders that a member executes on Nasdaq during the month will count
as liquidity-adding activity on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend in two respects, its
schedule of credits, which it provides to members for displayed quotes/
orders that provide liquidity. First, the Exchange is proposing to
remove the $0.0001 per share executed and the $0.00015 per share
executed supplemental credits in Tapes A, B and C that are provided to
members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders)
that provide liquidity. Second, the Exchange is proposing to add these
two supplemental credits to the current credits in Tapes A, B and C
that are provided to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide
liquidity.
    Specifically, one of the two supplemental credits is a $0.0001 per
share executed credit provided when a member, through one or more of
its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, either: (i) Increases the extent of its
ADV of MELO Orders and/or midpoint orders (that execute against MELO
Orders) in all securities by an ADV of 1 million shares or more during
the month relative to the month of June 2021; or (ii) executes a
combined volume of at least 3 million shares ADV through midpoint
orders provided and MELO Orders during the month and increases the
extent of its ADV of midpoint orders provided and MELO Orders in all
securities by 100% or more during the month relative to the month of
June 2021. The other supplemental credit is a $0.00015 per share
executed credit provided when a member, through one or more of its
Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, either: (i) Increases the extent of its ADV
of MELO Orders and/or midpoint orders (that execute against MELO
Orders) in all securities by an ADV of 2 million shares

or more during the month relative to the month of June 2021; or (ii)
executes a combined volume of at least 4 million shares ADV through
midpoint orders provided and MELO Orders during the month and increases
the extent of its ADV of midpoint orders provided and MELO Orders in
all securities by 150% or more during the month relative to the month
of June 2021. These two credits may not be combined with each other.
    Although the Exchange did not exclude retail orders when it
proposed these two supplemental credits in Tapes A, B and C,\6\ the
Exchange did not intend to include Designated Retail Orders in the
payment of these supplemental credits. Currently, Designated Retail
Orders receive their own separate credits on the Exchange's fee
schedule and those orders generally receive higher rebates. The
Exchange does not commonly provide additional rebates to Designated
Retail Orders and therefore, is proposing to update its fee schedule to
accurately reflect the manner in which it will pay these supplemental
credits going forward.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92433 (July 6, 2021), 86
FR 38772 (July 22, 2021).
    \7\ Since the $0.0001 per share executed and the $0.00015 per
share executed credits were established in July 2021, the Exchange
has not been applying the credit to Designated Retail Orders when
calculating a firm's credits. Therefore, the Exchange is working to
retroactively provide credits to firms that would have received
credits if their Designated Retail Orders were not excluded. Under
the proposal, there will be three ways for firm [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to allow a member to receive the
higher rebate for its Designated Retail Orders if the member's total
rebate for non-Designated Retail Orders (including any supplemental
credits provided in Section 114 and Section 118, except the NBBO
Program credit provided in Section 114(g)) is greater than its rebate
for Designated Retail Orders (including supplemental credits provided
in Section 114 and Section 118). For example, a member that provides
liquidity for Designated Retail Orders could qualify for a credit of
$0.00325 per share executed. However, if the member provides liquidity
for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or
Designated Retail Orders), the member could qualify for a credit of
$0.00305 per share executed and could also qualify for an additional
$0.0002 per share executed through the QMM Program, as well as an
additional supplemental credit of $0.0001 per share executed, making
the member's total possible credit for displayed non-Designated Retail
Orders $0.00335 per share. In this case, the member would also receive
a credit of $0.00335 per share for its Designated Retail Orders. The
Exchange is excluding the NBBO Program when calculating a member's
highest rebate because the NBBO Program only applies to displayed
orders in securities priced at $1 or more per share that provide
liquidity, establish the national best bid or best offer (``NBBO''),
and display a quantity of at least one round lot at the time of
execution. Consistent with the proposed rule, the NBBO Program
explicitly excludes Designated Retail Orders.
    The Exchange is proposing this change to ensure that none of its
members are disadvantaged and that all members can obtain the maximum
possible rebate.
    The Exchange notes that those participants that are dissatisfied
with this new proposal are free to shift their order flow to competing
venues.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposal is reasonable in several respects. As a
threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that
constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this
market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to amend the Tier 1
threshold of its QMM Program to provide the option for a QMM to qualify
if the QMM executes shares of liquidity provided that represent 70
million shares of average daily volume during the month (inclusive of
volume that consists of securities priced less than $1). The Exchange
also believes that the additional threshold option of 70 million shares
of average daily volume will provide an increased incentive to members
during times when the market is trading at a higher than usual daily
volume. An increase in liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will,
in turn, improve the quality of the Nasdaq market and increase its
attractiveness to existing and prospective participants.
    The Exchange notes that those participants that are dissatisfied
with the new threshold option are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
include the option of an additional baseline month to measure whether a
member increases its shares of liquidity provided in all

securities by at least 30%. The Exchange believes that the additional
month will encourage members who had a lower baseline in November than
October to increase their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange to
receive the credit, which will improve the overall market quality to
the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange's fee schedule is intended to reflect the Exchange's
current assessment of its fees and credits. The Exchange does not
currently pay Designated Retail Orders the $0.0001 and $0.00015
supplemental credits discussed above. As discussed above, Designated
Retail Orders receive their own separate credits on the Exchange's fee
schedule and those orders generally receive higher rebates. The
Exchange does not commonly provide additional rebates to Designated
Retail Orders. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
amend its supplemental credits on Tapes A, B and C to accurately
reflect that Designated Retail Orders are excluded from the Exchange's
payment of these two supplemental credits.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to provide a
member's Designated Retail Orders with the highest rebate that a member
qualifies for because the Exchange is always seeking ways to attract
more retail order flow. Therefore, if a member's rebate for non-
Designated Retail Orders (including any supplemental credits provided
in Section 114 and Section 118, except the NBBO Program credit provided
in Section 114(g)) is greater than its rebate for Designated Retail
Orders (including supplemental credits provided in Section 114 and
Section 118), the Exchange is proposing to provide the member with the
higher rebate for its Designated Retail Orders. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that it is reasonable to exclude the NBBO Program
when calculating a member's highest rebate because, as discussed above,
the NBBO Program only applies to displayed orders in securities priced
at $1 or more per share that provide liquidity, establish the national
best bid or best offer (``NBBO''), and display a quantity of at least
one round lot at the time of execution. Consistent with the proposed
rule, the NBBO Program explicitly excludes Designated Retail Orders.
The Exchange is proposing this change to ensure that none of its
members are disadvantaged and that all members can obtain the maximum
possible rebate.
    The Exchange notes that those market participants that are
dissatisfied with the proposals are free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that offer more generous pricing or less stringent
qualifying criteria.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its charges and
credits fairly among its market participants.
    The Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation to
establish an additional threshold for its QMM Program's Tier 1
supplemental credit and to include the option of an additional baseline
month to measure whether a member qualifies for the $0.0001 per share
executed supplemental credit for displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that provide
liquidity. The proposals will encourage members to increase the extent
to which they add liquidity to the Exchange. To the extent that the
Exchange succeeds in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on
the Exchange, then the Exchange will experience improvements in its
market quality, which stands to benefit all market participants.
    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable to amend the
$0.0001 per share executed and the $0.00015 per share executed
supplemental credits for displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders) by applying the credits to members for displayed
quotes/orders [sic], which accurately reflect the most current
application of these two supplemental credits. The Exchange believes
that it is equitable to exclude Designated Retail Orders from these
supplemental credits because Designated Retail Orders receive their own
separate credits on the Exchange's fee schedule and those orders
generally receive higher rebates. The Exchange does not commonly
provide additional rebates to Designated Retail Orders.
    Lastly, the Exchange also believes it is equitable to allow a
member to receive the higher credit if the member's total credits for
non-Designated Retail Orders (including any supplemental credits
provided in Section 114 and Section 118, except the NBBO Program credit
provided in Section 114(g)) is greater than its credit for Designated
Retail Orders (including supplemental credits provided in Section 114
and Section 118) in order to encourage firms to continue to provide
retail order flow even if the firms expect to receive a higher rebate
from their non-Designated Retail Orders. Moreover, the Exchange also
believes it is equitable to exclude the NBBO Program from the
calculation to ensure that the Exchange does not inadvertently
disadvantage any member and that all members are treated equitably by
obtaining the maximum rebate possible. Moreover, the Exchange believes
that it is equitable to exclude the NBBO Program from this proposal as
it remains consistent with the current rules of the program.
Additionally, the Exchange expects any impact from this exclusion to be
de minimis because Designated Retail Orders do not frequently set the
NBBO.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposal is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Proposal is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
enhances price discovery and improves the overall quality of the equity
markets.
    The Exchange also believes that its proposal to add an additional
threshold for its QMM Program's Tier 1 supplemental credit is not
unfairly discriminatory because the additional qualifications will be
available to all members. Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is
not unfairly discriminatory to include the option of an additional
baseline month to measure whether a member qualifies for the $0.0001
per share executed supplemental credit for displayed quotes/orders
(other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) that
provide liquidity because the additional qualifications will be
available to all members.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is not unfairly
discriminatory to amend its fee schedule to align with the way the
Exchange pays its supplemental credits. Moreover, all non-retail market
participants will continue to be entitled to the credits and the
amendment will provide market participants with clarity on how certain
supplemental credits are paid. Additionally, Designated Retail Orders
receive their own separate

credits on the Exchange's fee schedule and those orders generally
receive higher rebates.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that its proposals to provide a
member with the higher rebate for its Designated Retail Orders if the
member's rebate for non-Designated Retail Orders (including any
supplemental credits provided in Section 114 and Section 118, except
the NBBO Program credit provided in Section 114(g)) is greater than its
credit for Designated Retail Orders (including supplemental credits
provided in Section 114 and Section 118) is not unfairly discriminatory
because the higher rebate option will be available to all members.
Moreover, providing members with the higher rebate will ensure that
firms are not disincentivized from increasing their retail order flow
due to the higher rebate they may receive from their non-Designated
Retail Orders. Additionally, exclusion of the NBBO Program credit from
the calculation of the higher rebate is also not discriminatory because
the exclusion will also apply to all members.
    Overall, the proposals stand to improve the overall market quality
of the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants, by
incentivizing members to increase the extent of their liquidity
provision or activity on the Exchange. Any participant that is
dissatisfied with the proposal is free to shift their order flow to
competing venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent
qualifying criteria.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
    As noted above, the Exchange's proposals are intended to have
market-improving effects, to the benefit of all members. The Exchange
notes that its members are free to trade on other venues to the extent
they believe that these proposals are not attractive. As one can
observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
Intermarket Competition
    In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its credits and fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own credits and
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which credit or fee changes in this market may impose any burden on
competition is extremely limited.
    The additional proposed thresholds for the Exchange's QMM Program's
Tier 1 supplemental credit and the $0.0001 per share executed
supplemental credit for displayed quotes/orders (other than
Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders), as well as the
allowance for members to receive the better of their Designated Retail
Order credit or its non-Designated Retail Order credit, is reflective
of this competition. Moreover, aligning the Exchange's fee schedule
with the Exchange's application of its rebates does not burden
competition. Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposals is
free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more
generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
    Even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume, the
Exchange has less than 20% market share, which in most markets could
hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden
competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprises upwards of 50% of industry volume.
    In sum, if the change proposed herein is unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-011. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2022-011 and should be submitted
on or before February 24, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02183 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 55895]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC).

DATES: The meeting will be held September 26, 2012, from 8:30 a.m.-1:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the secured facilities at RTCA,
Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Program Management Committee. The
agenda will include the following:

September 26, 2012

 Welcome and Introductions
 Review/Approve Meeting Summary
     June 13, 2012
 Publication Consideration/Approval
     Final Draft, New Document--Concept of Use for Aeronautical
Information Services (AIS) and Meteorological (MET) Data Link Services,
prepared by SC-206.
     Final Draft, New Document, Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS) for an Enhanced Flight Vision System to
Enable All-Weather Approach, Landing and Roll-Out to a Safe Taxi Speed,
prepared by SC-213.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-276A, User Requirements for
Terrain and Obstacle Data, prepared by SC-217.
 Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)--Report
     MASPS, SPR Guidance--Status Update.
     DO-160 Primer--Discussion and Approval
     Installation Guidance Document Outline and Update
 Action Item Review
     SC-203--Unmanned Aircraft Systems--Discussion--Committee
Status and Terms of Reference Update
     SC-214--Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication
Services--Discussion--ICAO Activities and Schedule Affecting SC-214
     European/EUROCAE Coordination--Update
     SC-217--Terrain and Airport Databases--Discussion--
Possible Future Activity to Revise RTCA DO-200A and DO-201A
 Discussion
     SC-186--Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast--
Discussion--Revised Terms of Reference
     SC-216--Aeronautical Systems Security--Discussion--
Security/Safety Relationships
     NAC Update
     FAA Actions Taken on Previously Published Documents
     Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports
     Other Business
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2012.
Kathy Hitt,
Management Analyst, Business Operations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-22251 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30279-30280]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12322]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0947; FRL 9516-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; CAIR To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particle Matter and Ozone (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before June 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0947, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radition Docket (Mail
Code 28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets
Division, (6204J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On 01/12/2012 (77 FR 1930), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one non-substantial comment
during the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should
be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under EPA Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0947, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket, in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Use EPA's electronic docket and
comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and
to access those documents in the docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``docket search,'' then key
in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy
is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: CAIR to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particle Matter
and Ozone (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2152.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0570.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31,
2012. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particle Matter and Ozone. CAIR combined
its reporting requirements with existing requirements from the Emission
Reporting Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Revisions Relating to Statewide Budgets for NOX Emissions to
Reduce Regional Transport of Ozone (NOX SIP Call) and the
Acid Rain Program (ARP) under Title IV of the CAA Amendments of 1990.
These other requirements have approved ICRs in place. The ARP is
covered under OMB Control Number 2060-0258. The NOX SIP
Call, OMB Control Number 2060-0445, was revised in 2008 and sources
previously subject to the NOX SIP Call requirements are now
covered under CAIR. In 2009 an administrative change was made to
include Delaware and New Jersey in the Clean Air Interstate Rule, OMB
Control Number 2060-0584 in this ICR. This ICR is being submitted to
account for the incremental burden associated with CAIR. As such, the
supporting statement references the burden analysis included in the
ICRs for the NOX SIP Call and ARP and estimates the change
in burden resulting from CAIR beyond the scope of these ICRs. This ICR
details the ongoing burdens associated with CAIR. These

changes can be logically divided into two categories: (1) Annualized
startup/capital and operational costs associated with CAIR affected
units that are not also affected by the ARP program and (2) incremental
operational costs for ARP affected units that are also subject to the
CAIR program. The previous 2009-2011 ICR period contained a number of
one-time costs and burdens associated with facilities/units either
transitioning into the CAIR program from the NOX SIP Call
program or facilities/units previously affected by ARP that were
required to make changes as part of CAIR. These one-time costs and
burdens were fully realized in the 2009-2011 period.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 22
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Sources subject to the CAIR program.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,077.
    Frequency of response: Quarterly.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 265,292 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $40,819,163, which included
$22,539,614 in capital and O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 141,747 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This change from the previous ICR is due to three
major differences. (1) The previous ICR included a number of one-time
transition burdens associated with the incorporation of NOX
SIP Call sources and incremental changes for ARP sources. Those one
time burdens were fully accounted for in the previous ICR and are not
included in the 2012-2014 period. (2) The previous ICR also included a
State and local reporting burden associated with annual and triennial
emissions inventory reporting. This reporting requirement was removed
with changes to 40 CFR 51.125 published in 76 FR 48353 on August 8,
2011. (3) The overall number of facilities slightly declined despite
the previous administrative change to include Delaware and New Jersey.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-12322 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


% Crack & Crevice hardsurface 30 days exposure, daily shower, 10% dissipation daily
% Average cpfos concentrations in blood = 0.004 ug/L
% August 29, 2016
% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
QPC = 29; 	% to get QALV = 8.3 L/min @BW = 75 kg
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;		% Set BW to a fixed value
BWST=75;		% Set BW to 75kg
PREG=0;			% Not pregnant
DZONE = 1;		% Turn on dermal exposure
KDIS = 0.1;		% 10% daily dissipation
TSTOP=720;	%Simulation time in hours, 30 days

% Dermal exposure
SAF= 0.5;	 	% Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.
FAD=1;     	% Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.
DERM = 7.07;	% dose in ug/kg
D3=7;  %DAYS/WEEK
P2 = 2;	%hours/day
S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2=30;	%30 day exposure

% Inhalation exposure
CONCMGM=0.00089; % Inhalation concentration mg/m3. Value is largest value reported in monitoring data.
D3IN=5;  %DAYS/WEEK
P2IN=2; %HRS/DAY
S2IN=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2IN=1; %1 day exposure

prepare @clear@all
start @NoCallback
simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5 _blauc*350.6 _blauco*334.5 _blaucavg*350.6 _blaucoavg*334.5]; 	%conc unit = ug/L

save simall @file='CC_hs_08292016' @format=ascii