[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 8311-8312]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0021; FRL-8349-5]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0021. and the pesticide petition number (PP
7F7262 ), by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0021. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Greene, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of a pesticide petition
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA
has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 7F7262. BioSafe Systems, 22 Meadow Street, East Hartford, CT
06108, proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the fungicide peroxyacetic acid, in or on all
agricultural commodities when used as a biochemical pesticide. Because
this petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is
required.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: February 5, 2008.
W. Michael McDavit,
 Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E8-2708 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 197 (Thursday, October 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54692-54695]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87233; File No. SR-PEARL-2019-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

October 4, 2019.
    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 September 20, 2019, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to establish one-time membership
application fees for MIAX PEARL Members.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is
registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of the Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange previously filed to establish one-time membership
application fees on June 28, 2019 (SR-PEARL-2019-22).\4\ That filing
was withdrawn on August 27, 2019. It is replaced with the current
filing (SR-PEARL-2019-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86363 (July 12,
2019), 84 FR 34445 (July 18, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-22) (the ``Second
Proposed Rule Change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to establish one-
time membership application fees based upon the applicant's status as
either an Electronic Exchange Member \5\ (``EEM'') or as a Market
Maker.\6\ MIAX PEARL commenced operations as a national securities
exchange registered under Section 6 of the Act \7\ on February 6,
2017.\8\ The Exchange adopted its transaction fees and certain of its
non-transaction fees in its filing SR-PEARL-2017-10.\9\ In that filing,
the Exchange expressly waived the one-time membership application fees
to provide an incentive to prospective EEMs and Market Makers to become
Members of the Exchange. At that time, the Exchange waived one-time
membership application fees for the Waiver Period \10\ and stated that
it would provide notice to market participants when the

Exchange intended to terminate the Waiver Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means the holder
of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent Public
Customer Orders or Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and those
non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading. Electronic
Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \6\ ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with the Exchange
for the purpose of making markets in options contracts traded on the
Exchange and that is vested with the rights and responsibilities
specified in Chapter VI of Exchange Rules. See Exchange Rule 100.
See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79543 (December 13,
2016), 81 FR 92901 (December 20, 2016) (File No. 10-227) (order
approving application of MIAX PEARL, LLC for registration as a
national securities exchange).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80061 (February 17,
2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10).
    \10\ ``Waiver Period'' means, for each applicable fee, the
period of time from the initial effective date of the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule until such time that the Exchange has an effective fee
filing establishing the applicable fee. The Exchange will issue a
Regulatory Circular announcing the establishment of an applicable
fee that was subject to a Waiver Period at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the termination of the Waiver Period and effective date of
any such applicable fee. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 14, 2019, the Exchange issued a Regulatory Circular that
the Exchange would be ending the Waiver Period for one-time membership
application fees, among other non-transaction fees, beginning on April
1, 2019.\11\ The Exchange initially filed the proposal on March 27,
2019, designating the proposed fees effective April 1, 2019.\12\ The
First Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on April 12, 2019.\13\ The proposed fees remained in effect
until the Exchange withdrew the First Proposed Rule Change on May 20,
2019.\14\ The First Proposed Rule Change included additional fee
changes to adopt certain other non-transaction fees and to terminate
the three-month New Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver and Waiver
Period.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See MIAX PEARL Regulatory Circular 2019-09 available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/circular-files/MIAX_PEARL_RC_2019_09.pdf.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85541 (April 8,
2019), 84 FR 14983 (April 12, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-12) (the ``First
Proposed Rule Change'').
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See Letter from Gregory P. Ziegler, AVP and Senior
Associate Counsel, MIAX PEARL, LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting
Secretary, Commission, dated May 17, 2019.
    \15\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange refiled the proposal on June 28, 2019, designating the
proposed fees effective July 1, 2019.\16\ The Second Proposed Rule
Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 18,
2019.\17\ The proposed fee changes remained in effect until the
Exchange withdrew the Second Proposed Rule Change on August 27,
2019.\18\ The Second Proposed Rule Change included additional fee
changes to adopt certain other non-transaction fees and to terminate
the three-month New Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver and Waiver
Period.\19\ The Exchange is now re-filing the proposal to establish
one-time membership application fees for EEMs and Market Makers. The
Exchange will file separate proposals to establish certain other non-
transaction fees and to terminate the New Member Non-Transaction Fee
Waiver and Waiver Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 4.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See Letter from Joseph Ferraro, SVP and Deputy General
Counsel, MIAX PEARL, LLC, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary,
Commission, dated August 26, 2019.
    \19\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIAX PEARL Membership Application Fee
    The Exchange proposes to assess a one-time membership application
fee based upon the applicant's status as either an EEM or as a Market
Maker. The Exchange proposes that applicants for MIAX PEARL Membership
as an EEM will be assessed a one-time application fee of $500. The
Exchange proposes that applicants for MIAX PEARL Membership as a Market
Maker will be assessed a one-time application fee of $1,500. The
difference in the proposed membership application fee to be charged to
EEMs and Market Makers is because of the additional review and
resources involved in processing a Market Maker's application, as
Market Makers have greater and more complex obligations with respect to
doing business on the Exchange. MIAX PEARL's proposed one-time
membership application fees are similar to and generally lower than
one-time application fees in place at the Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe'') ($3,000 for an individual applicant and $5,000 for an
applicant organization) \20\ and at Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'')
($7,500 per firm for a primary market maker, $5,500 per firm for a
competitive market maker, and $3,500 per firm for an electronic market
maker).\21\ Below is the table for the proposed one-time membership
application fee for MIAX PEARL:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Cboe Fees Schedule, p. 12, Cboe Trading Permit Holder
Application Fees.
    \21\ See Nasdaq ISE, Options Rules, Options 7, Pricing Schedule,
Section 9. Legal and Regulatory A. Application.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Application
                     Type of membership                          fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Exchange Member.................................      $500.00
Market Maker...............................................     1,500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX PEARL will assess a one-time Membership Application Fee on the
earlier of (i) the date the applicant is certified in the membership
system, or (ii) once an application for MIAX PEARL membership is
finally denied.
Applicability to and Impact on Participants
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
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.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than approximately 16%
market share.\23\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing
power. More specifically, as of September 9, 2019, the Exchange had an
approximately 5.30% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed
equity and exchange traded fund (``ETF'') options.\24\ The Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can discontinue or
reduce use of certain categories of products, or shift order flow, in
response to non-transaction and transaction fee changes. For example,
on September 28, 2018, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposal to decrease a transaction fee for certain types of orders
(which fee was to be effective October 1, 2018).\25\ The Exchange
experienced an increase in total market share in the month of October
2018, after the proposal went into effect. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the October 1, 2018 fee change, decreasing a transaction
fee, may have contributed to the increase in the Exchange's market
share and, as such, the Exchange believes competitive forces constrain
MIAX PEARL's, and other options exchanges, ability to set non-
transaction and transaction fees and market participants can shift
order flow based on fee changes instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') publishes
options and futures volume in a variety of formats, including daily
and monthly volume by exchange, available here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84387 (October 9,
2018), 83 FR 52039 (October 15, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed adoption of a one-time membership application fee
applicable to EEMs and Market Markers would be applied uniformly to
each of these market participants. Further, as there are currently 16
registered options exchanges competing for order flow with no single
exchange accounting for more than approximately 16% of market share,
the Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any participant is
planning to become a Member and thus would be subject to the proposed
fees.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \27\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt a one-time
membership application fee applicable to EEMs and Market Markers as
described above is reasonable in several respects. First, the Exchange
is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options
transaction and non-transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
In Regulation NMS, 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.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options transaction services. The Exchange is one of several options
venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it
represents a small percentage of the overall market. Within this
environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their
order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to
changes in their respective pricing schedules. There are currently 16
registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no
single exchange has more than approximately 16% of the market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options.\29\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power. More
specifically, as of September 9, 2019, the Exchange had approximately a
5.30% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') publishes
options and futures volume in a variety of formats, including daily
and monthly volume by exchange, available here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the ever-shifting market share
among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market
participants can discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, or shift order flow, in response to non-transaction and
transaction fee changes. For example, on September 28, 2018, the
Exchange filed with the Commission a proposal to decrease a transaction
fee for certain types of orders (which fee was to be effective October
1, 2018).\31\ The Exchange experienced an increase in total market
share in the month of October 2018, after the proposal went into
effect. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the October 1, 2018 fee
change, decreasing a transaction fee, may have contributed to the
increase in the Exchange's market share and, as such, the Exchange
believes competitive forces constrain MIAX PEARL's, and other options
exchanges, ability to set non-transaction and transaction fees and
market participants can shift order flow based on fee changes
instituted by the exchanges. Further, the Exchange no longer believes
it is necessary to waive these fees to attract market participants to
the MIAX PEARL market since this market is now established and MIAX
PEARL no longer needs to rely on such waivers to attract market
participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the elimination of
the fee waiver for one-time membership application fees will uniformly
apply to all EEMs and Market Makers seeking to become Members of the
Exchange. Additionally, The [sic] Exchange believes its proposal for a
one-time membership application fees applicable to EEMs and Market
Markers is reasonable and well within the range of fees assessed among
other exchanges, including the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84387 (October 9,
2018), 83 FR 52039 (October 15, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-21).
    \32\ See the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its one-time membership application fees are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As described
above, the one-time application fees are similar to the application
fees in place at other options exchanges,\33\ and are associated with
the time and resources of processing of such applications. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory that Market Maker applicants are charged slightly more
than EEM applicants because of the additional review and resources
involved in processing a Market Maker's application, as Market Makers
have greater and more complex obligations with respect to doing
business on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra notes 20 and 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, 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. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees for services and products, in addition to order flow, to
remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    MIAX PEARL 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.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. Unilateral action by
MIAX PEARL in the assessment of one-time membership application fees
will not have an impact on competition. As a more recent entrant in the
already highly competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX
PEARL does not have the market power necessary to set prices for
services that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation
of the Act. MIAX PEARL's proposed one-time membership application fees,
as described herein, are comparable to fees charged by other options
exchanges

for the same or similar services, including those fees assessed by its
affiliate, MIAX.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed one-time membership
application fees do not place certain market participants at a relative
disadvantage to other market participants because the pricing is
associated with the Exchange's time and resources to process such
applications. The proposed one-time membership application fees do not
apply unequally to different size market participants, but instead
would allow the Exchange to charge for reviewing and processing Market
Maker and EEM membership applications. Accordingly, the proposed one-
time membership application fees do not favor certain categories of
market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on
competition.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
promote transparency by making it clear to EEMs and Market Makers the
fees that MIAX PEARL will assess for Membership application to MIAX
PEARL. This will permit EEMs and Market Makers to more accurately
anticipate and account for the costs of one-time membership application
in order to become Members of the Exchange, which promotes consistency.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the proposed one-time membership application
fees do not place an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is
not necessary or appropriate. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing options venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive.\35\ Based on publicly-available
information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has
more than 16% market share. Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity
and ETF options order flow. As of September 9, 2019, the Exchange had
an approximately 5.30% market share \36\ and the Exchange believes that
the ever-shifting market share among exchanges from month to month
demonstrates that market participants can discontinue or reduce use of
certain categories of products, or shift order flow, in response to fee
changes. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and fee waivers to remain competitive with other exchanges and
to attract order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 23.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\37\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \38\ thereunder.
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 necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PEARL-2019-27 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-PEARL-2019-27. 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-PEARL-2019-27 and should be submitted on
or before October 31, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22143 Filed 10-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19467-19470]
[DOCID:fr14ap06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0287; FRL-8158-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission by the state of Missouri which revises the Construction
Permits Required rule, and we are taking no action on the revisions
made to the Emissions Banking and Trading rule. We propose to approve
most of the revisions to the Construction Permits Required rule because
the revisions incorporate, by reference, the Federal New Source Review
reforms, published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2002. In a
February 28, 2006, letter from the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Missouri requested EPA not act on certain rule references.
Specifically, Missouri requested EPA not act on references to Clean
Unit Exemptions, Pollution Control Projects, and the record keeping
provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections.
Missouri requests no action on these provisions because of the June 24,
2005, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit's decision, which vacated the Clean Unit Exemption and
Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the
recordkeeping provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections standard for when a source must keep certain project
related records.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0287, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0287. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

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

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
What Is the Background for EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform
Rule?
What Is Missouri's NSR Reform Rule and What Action Has Missouri
Requested on the Rule?
What Is EPA's Proposed Action on Missouri's Definition of ``Baseline
Area''?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Proposing?

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) are incorporated
into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are
maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part
52, entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The
actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their

entirety in the CFR outright but are ``incorporated by reference,''
which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a
specific effective date.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    We are proposing to approve the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources' (MDNR) request to include, as a revision to Missouri's SIP,
amendments to rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits Required, and
we are not acting on the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.410, Emissions
Banking and Trading rule. These rules were adopted by the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission on August 26, 2004, and became effective under
state law on December 30, 2004. The rules were submitted to EPA on
February 25, 2005, and the submission included comments on the rules
made during the state's adoption process, the state's response to
comments and other information necessary to meet EPA's completeness
criteria. For additional information on completeness criteria, the
reader should refer to 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

What Is the Background for EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform Rule?

    The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in areas that meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as,
``attainment areas'' and in areas for which there is insufficient
information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS, also known
as, ``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7501-7515, is the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program, which
applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, also known
as, ``nonattainment areas.'' Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs
are referred to as the ``New Source Review'' or NSR programs. EPA
regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21 52.24 and part 51, appendix S. The Missouri rules which
are the subject of this proposal address the Part C requirements for
attainment and unclassifiable areas.
    The CAA NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, an SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied, to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decisions.
    The 2002 NSR Reform rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply
with plantwide applicability limits (PALs) to avoid having a
significant emission increase that triggers the requirements of the
major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for
emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude
pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of physical
change or change in the method of operation.
    After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were finalized and effective,
various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform
rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR rules (45 FR 5276 August
7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New
York v. United States, 413 F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a
portion of the rules regarding exemption from recordkeeping, e.g., 40
CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other
provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not
yet responded to the Court's remand regarding recordkeeping provisions.

What Is Missouri's NSR Reform Rule and What Action Has Missouri
Requested on the Rule?

    In this action, we propose approval of revisions to Missouri rule,
10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits Required, into the SIP. This rule
incorporates by reference the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21,
including the 2002 NSR Reform rules described above.
    In relevant parts, the Missouri rule excludes the public
participation requirements in Sec.  52.21(q), in favor of the Missouri
public participation process, previously approved in the SIP, in 10 CSR
10-6.060 section (12)(B). The Missouri rule retains a number of tables
and appendices which apply to the State's minor NSR program as well as
the PSD program. These include provisions on innovative control
technologies (Appendix E), exclusion from increment consumption
(Appendix G), and air quality models (Appendix F). To the extent that
these provisions or similar provisions are addressed by Sec.  52.21,
the provisions of Sec.  52.21 supersede the state provisions for
purposes of the PSD program. Other provisions, such as the permit fee
provisions in Appendix (A) of 10 CSR 10-6.060, which are not addressed
by Sec.  52.21, remain in effect.
    Missouri's rule was adopted prior to the New York decision
described above so it included the vacated and remanded provisions of
EPA's rule. However, Missouri requested in a February 28, 2006, letter
that EPA not act on the PCP, Clean Unit Exemption provisions, and the
reasonable possibility provision in the recordkeeping provisions for
the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections applicability
test. Missouri has also clarified that they commit to following EPA's
definition of `replacement unit' and will follow EPA's clarification of
how baseline emissions for PALs will be calculated (these
clarifications to the EPA's rules were promulgated after the
incorporation by reference date in the Missouri rule). When Missouri
updates the Construction Permits Required rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060,
Missouri commits to incorporating EPA's definition of replacement unit
by reference and will include EPA's clarification of how baseline
emissions for PALs are to be calculated.
    We are taking no action on these provisions and on revisions to
rule 10 CSR 6.410, Emissions Banking and Trading, because the only
revision to this rule was a change to prevent

sources from generating Early Reduction Credits from Pollution Control
Projects (PCPs) that take advantage of the PCP exclusion provisions in
EPA's NSR Reform rules. Since the PCP exclusion was vacated and we are
not acting on it, as it relates to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.060, we
are not acting upon the revision to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.410.
    The remaining rule revisions being proposed are approvable because
Missouri incorporated the December 31, 2002, New Source Review reform
regulation found in 40 CFR 52.21 by reference. We also note that
Missouri clarified section (9)(C)1 of the Construction Permits Required
rule. Section 9 outlines Hazardous Air Pollutant permit requirements
which are exempt from hazardous air pollutant permit requirements
unless they are listed on the source category list established in
accordance with section 112(c) of the CAA. We are taking no action on
including revisions to Section 9, because Section 9 addresses hazardous
air pollutants under Section 112 and is not presently in the SIP.

What Is EPA's Proposed Action on Missouri's Definition of ``Baseline
Area''?

    Missouri's initial NSR reform submission, which largely
incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by reference, retained the state's own
definition of ``baseline area'' for purposes of section (1)(A)1.
Additionally, Missouri requested in the February 28, 2006, letter that
we approve the Construction Permits Required rule and retain Missouri's
definition of baseline area in section (1)(A)1. Missouri acknowledges
that the current Construction Permits Required rule does not contain
the statement, ``designated as attainment or classifiable under section
107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the Act consistent with the Federal definition
of ``baseline area.'' We had previously approved this definition of
baseline area with the specification that Missouri redesignate the
areas of significant impact as the baseline area (proposed rule, 47 FR
7696, and final rule, 47 FR 26833). Missouri must make area-specific
designation requests and EPA must approve the redesignation of the area
before Missouri could establish new baseline areas under its rule.
Missouri commits to revising the ``baseline area'' definition to
clarify it will redesignate the areas of significant impact as baseline
areas according to section 107(d)(1)(D) or (E) of the CAA. Missouri
will submit these redesignations to EPA for formal approval before the
new baseline area can be used for PSD permitting purposes. While
Missouri works to revise the rule, Missouri commits to implementing the
baseline area definition consistent with all Federal regulations and
will ensure that the air quality increment analysis for permit
applications complies with all Federal and state requirements.

Have the Requirements for Approval of an SIP Revision Been Met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained below and in more detail in the technical
support document that is part of this document, EPA believes that the
revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    We propose to approve revisions to Missouri rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060,
Construction Permits Required. Per Missouri's request, we are taking no
action on Clean Unit Exemptions, Pollution Control Projects, and the
record keeping provisions for the actual-to-projected-actual emissions
projections. We are not acting on revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.410, Emissions Banking and Trading, because the only revision made to
the rule involves Pollution Control Projects.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 7, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 06-3593 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9614]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-9394-000]

Fontana, Joseph; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 11, 2022, Joseph Fontana submitted for
filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b)
and Part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 4, 2022.

    Dated: February 15, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03696 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Wastewater Management/ Water Permits Division 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2040 0170 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Information Collection Request for the Combined Sewer Overflow Policy 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1680.03 9. Keywords: CSOs, Nine Minimum Controls, Long Term CSO Control Plan, Monitoring,

10. Abstract This ICR addresses six broad areas of information collection burden: 1) information collection costs to municipalities to implement and document implementation of the nine minimum controls; 2) information collection costs to municipalities to develop long term CSO control plans consistent with the expectations in the CSO Control Policy; 3) information collection costs to municipalities to implement a compliance monitoring program; 4) burden on EPA and States to review and evaluate the information submitted by municipalities; 5) burden on municipalities for third party notification associated with one of the nine minimum controls; and 6) burden on States with approved NPDES programs to issue/ reissue NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanism requiring municipalities to implement the recommendations in the CSO Policy.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 930 b. Total annual responses 2483 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 580,044 d. Current OMB inventory 631,584 e. Difference  51,540 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  51,540 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 182 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 182 d. Current OMB inventory $ 348 e. Difference $ 166 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment $ 166 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. X_ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. X Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Timothy Dwyer Phone: 202 260 6064 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael Cook, Director Office of Wastewater Management Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22222-22224]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1127]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register
a proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. On December 10,
2012, a correction to that original notice was published in the Federal
Register. This notice provides corrections to that initial table and
the correction notice, to be used in lieu of the information published
at 75 FR 55515 and 77 FR 73394. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Mercer County,
Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions). Specifically, it addresses the
following flooding sources: Baker Run, Little Shenango River, Munnell
Run, Neshannock Creek, Otter Creek, Sawmill Run, Shenango River, and
Wolf Creek.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1127, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 55515 in the September 13,
2010, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. Corrections to that table were subsequently
published at 77 FR

73394 in the December 10, 2012, issue of the Federal Register under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The corrected table, entitled ``Mercer
County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)'' addressed the following
flooding sources: Baker Run, Little Shenango River, Munnell Run,
Neshannock Creek, Otter Creek, Sawmill Run, Shenango River, and Wolf
Creek. That table contained inaccurate information as to the location
of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, and/
or communities affected for the flooding source Shenango River. In
addition, several of the map repository addresses and the community
names of the City of Hermitage and the Borough of Wheatland included in
the notice were incorrect. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table
containing the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The
information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously
published.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010[dash]20966, beginning on page 55527
in the issue of September 13, 2010, make the following correction. On
pages 55522-55523, correct the Mercer County, Pennsylvania table as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                            elevation **          Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Mercer County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Run...........................  Approximately 55 feet           None        +1114  City of Sharon.
                                       upstream of Highland
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 30 feet           None        +1117
                                       downstream of Richmond
                                       Drive.
Little Shenango River...............  Approximately 0.94 mile         None         +968  Township of Sugar
                                       downstream of the                                  Grove.
                                       confluence with Little
                                       Shenango River
                                       Tributary 1.
                                      Approximately 0.9 mile          None         +968
                                       downstream of the
                                       confluence with Little
                                       Shenango River
                                       Tributary 1.
Munnell Run.........................  Approximately 0.31 mile         None        +1125  Township of Findley.
                                       upstream of Home
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 0.21 mile         None        +1131
                                       downstream of Franklin
                                       Street.
Neshannock Creek....................  Approximately 425 feet          None        +1093  Township of Findley.
                                       downstream of the
                                       intersection of
                                       Plantation Drive and
                                       Cypress Lane.
                                      Approximately 0.3 mile          None        +1095
                                       upstream of the
                                       intersection of
                                       Schaffer Road and
                                       Grove City Road.
Otter Creek.........................  Approximately 0.28 mile         None        +1099  Township of Findley.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Munnell Run.
                                      Approximately 0.3 mile          None        +1099
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Munnell Run.
Sawmill Run.........................  Approximately 0.35 mile         None        +1164  Township of Sandy Lake.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Sawmill Run Tributary
                                       1.
                                      Approximately 0.46 mile         None        +1165
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Sawmill Run Tributary
                                       1.
Sawmill Run.........................  Approximately 0.23 mile         None        +1167  Borough of Stoneboro.
                                       downstream of Franklin
                                       Street (just below
                                       Maple Street).
                                      Approximately 305 feet          None        +1167
                                       upstream of Franklin
                                       Street.
Shenango River......................  Approximately 690 feet          None         +930  Borough of Greenville,
                                       upstream of the                                    Township of West
                                       confluence with Big                                Salem.
                                       Run No. 1.
                                      Approximately 295 feet          None         +943
                                       upstream of the
                                       intersection of
                                       Clinton Street and
                                       Canal Street.
Shenango River......................  Approximately 275 feet          None         +835  City of Hermitage.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Shenango River
                                       Tributary 3.
                                      Approximately 490 feet          None         +845
                                       downstream of the
                                       confluence with Little
                                       Yankee Run.
                                      Just downstream of              None         +856
                                       Clark Street.
                                      Approximately 820 feet          None         +859
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Big
                                       Run No. 2.
Shenango River......................  Approximately 2,400             +832         +833  Township of Shenango.
                                       feet upstream of I-80.
                                      Approximately 1.1 miles         +832         +833
                                       upstream of I-80.
Shenango River......................  Approximately 645 feet          None         +833  Borough of Wheatland.
                                       downstream of Sieg
                                       Hill Road.
                                      Approximately 1,000             None         +834
                                       feet upstream of Sieg
                                       Hill Road.
Shenango River......................  Approximately 0.34 mile         None         +949  Township of West Salem.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with the
                                       Little Shenango River.
                                      Approximately 200 feet          None         +951
                                       downstream of Porter
                                       Road.
Wolf Creek..........................  Approximately 0.21 mile         None        +1220  Township of Pine.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Barmore Run.
                                      Approximately 0.34 mile         None        +1226
                                       downstream of the
                                       intersection of Craig
                                       Street and Garden
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 0.2 mile          None        +1226
                                       downstream of the
                                       intersection of Craig
                                       Street and Garden
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 0.38 mile         None        +1226
                                       downstream of State
                                       Route 58 (Main Street).

                                      Approximately 0.22 mile         None        +1245
                                       downstream of the
                                       confluence with Black
                                       Run.
                                      Approximately 0.21 mile         None        +1245
                                       downstream of the
                                       confluence with Black
                                       Run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
\**\ BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

ADDRESSES

Borough of Greenville
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 125 Main Street, Greenville, PA 16125.

Borough of Stoneboro
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 59 Lake Street, Stoneboro, PA 16153.

Borough of Wheatland
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Building, 71 Broadway Avenue, Wheatland, PA 16161.

City of Hermitage
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 800 North Hermitage Road, Hermitage, PA 16148.

City of Sharon
Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 155 West Connelly Boulevard, Sharon, PA 16146.

Township of Findley
Maps are available for inspection at the Findley Township Building, 369 McClelland Road, Mercer, PA 16137.

Township of Pine
Maps are available for inspection at the Pine Township Building, 545 Barkeyville Road, Grove City, PA 16127.

Township of Sandy Lake
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Building, 3086 Sandy Lake-Grove City Road, Sandy Lake, PA
 16145.

Township of Shenango
Maps are available for inspection at the Shenango Township Building, 3439 Hubbard-West Middlesex Road, West
 Middlesex, PA 16159.

Township of Sugar Grove
Maps are available for inspection at the Sugar Grove Township Building, 359 Groover Road, Greenville, PA 16125.

Township of West Salem
Maps are available for inspection at the West Salem Township Building, 610 Vernan Road, Greenville, PA 16125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-08045 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P