[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25969-25971]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0236; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Eau Claire, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, Class E
airspace designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chippewa Valley Regional
Airport, Eau Claire, WI. The FAA is proposing this action as a result
of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Eau Claire
nondirectional radio beacon (NDB)/outer compass locator (LOM). The name
and geographic coordinates of the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport and
the name of the May Clinic Health System-Eau Claire Heliport would also
be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0236; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-8, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated
as a surface area,

and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, Eau Claire, WI, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0236;
Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at  http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace at Chippewa Valley Regional Airport,
Eau Claire, WI, by adding an extension 1.0 mile each side of the
215[deg] bearing from the airport from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.5 miles
south of the airport; adding an extension 1.0 mile each side of the
224[deg] bearing from the Chippewa Valley RGNL: RWY 22 LOC from the
4.3-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport; removing the name of
the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description
to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling
Airspace Matters; and amending the part-time language from ``The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
advance by Notice to Airmen.'' to ``The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.'' in
compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L;
    Amending the Class E airspace designated as a surface area to
within a 4.3-mile radius (reduced from a 4.4-mile radius) of the
Chippewa Valley Regional Airport (formerly Eau Claire County Airport);
removing the Eau Claire County Airport Localizer and the associated
extension from the airspace legal description; adding an extension 1.0
mile each side of the 215[deg] bearing from the airport from the 4.3-
mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport; adding an extension 1.0
mile each side of the 224[deg] bearing from the Chippewa Valley RGNL:
RWY 22 LOC from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport;
adding part-time language to the airspace legal description; and
updating the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database; and
    Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 6.8-mile radius (increased from a 6.7-mile
radius) at Chippewa Valley Regional Airport; removing the extension to
the southwest of the airport associated with the localizer; amending
the extension north of the airport to within 4.0 miles (increased from
3.1 miles) each side of the Eau Claire VORTAC 004[deg] radial from the
6.8-mile radius to 7.0 miles north of the airport;, and updating the
geographic coordinates of Chippewa Valley Regional Airport and the name
of Mayo Clinic Health System-Eau Claire Heliport (formerly Luther
Hospital) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Eau Claire NDB/LOM.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August
3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000. Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL WI D Eau Claire, WI [Amended]

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]51'57'' N, long. 91[deg]29'03'' W)
Chippewa Valley RGNL: RWY 22 LOC
    (Lat. 44[deg]51'31'' N, long. 91[deg]29'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Chippewa Valley Regional
Airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 215[deg] bearing from
the airport from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the
airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 224[deg] bearing from
the Chippewa Valley RGNL: RWY 22 LOC from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.5
miles south of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice
to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL WI E2 Eau Claire, WI [Amended]

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]51'57'' N, long. 91[deg]29'03'' W)
Chippewa Valley RGNL: RWY 22 LOC
    (Lat. 44[deg]51'31'' N, long. 91[deg]29'37'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of the Chippewa Valley
Regional Airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 215[deg]
bearing from the airport from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.5 miles south
of the airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 224[deg]
bearing from the Chippewa Valley RGNL: RWY 22 LOC from the 4.3-mile
radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport. This Class E airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Eau Claire, WI [Amended]

Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]51'57'' N, long. 091[deg]29'03'' W)
Eau Claire VORTAC
    (Lat. 44[deg]53'52'' N, long. 091[deg]28'43'' W)
    Mayo Clinic Health System-Eau Claire Heliport, WI, Point In
Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 44[deg]48'24'' N, long. 091[deg]31'51'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, and
within 4.0 miles each side of the Eau Claire VORTAC 004[deg] radial
extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 7.0 miles north of the
airport, and within a 6.0-mile radius of the point in space serving
the Mayo Clinic Health System-Eau Claire Heliport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 24, 2018.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-11852 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32287-32288]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12746]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34298; File No. 812-15216]

Schwab Strategic Trust, et al.

June 11, 2021.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
    Applicants: Schwab Strategic Trust (the ``Trust''), Charles Schwab
Investment Management, Inc. (the ``Initial Adviser'') and SEI
Investments Distribution Co. (the ``Distributor'').
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
that permits: (a) The Funds (defined below) to issue shares
(``Shares'') redeemable in large aggregations only (``creation
units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at
negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value; (c) certain
Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more
than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; and (d)
certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and
receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and
redemption of creation units. The relief in the Order would incorporate
by reference terms and conditions of the same relief of a previous
order granting the same relief sought by applicants, as that order may
be amended from time to time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Natixis ETF Trust II, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 33684 (November 14, 2019) (notice) and 33711 (December 10,
2019) (order). Applicants are not seeking relief under section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A)
and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act (the ``Section 12(d)(1) Relief''), and
relief under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption
from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act relating to the
Section 12(d)(1) Relief, as granted in the Reference Order.
Accordingly, to the extent the terms and conditions of the Reference
Order relate to such relief, they are not incorporated by reference
into the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 5, 2021 and amended
on May 20, 2021.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving Applicants with a
copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be
received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2021, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature

of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a
hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: David
J. Lekich, Esq., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., 211 Main
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; Adam T. Teufel, Esq., Dechert LLP,
1900 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-1110; John Munch, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, PA 19456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876 or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants

    1. The Trust is a business trust organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware and will consist of one or more series operating as a
Fund. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment
company under the Act. Applicants seek relief with respect to Funds (as
defined below), including an initial Fund (the ``Initial Fund''). The
Funds will offer exchange-traded shares utilizing active management
investment strategies as contemplated by the Reference Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To facilitate arbitrage, among other things, each day a Fund
will publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different
from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Initial Adviser, a Delaware corporation, will be the
investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Subject to approval by the
Funds' board of trustees, an Adviser (as defined below) will serve as
investment adviser to each Fund. The Initial Adviser is, and any other
Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser may
enter into sub-advisory agreements with other investment advisers to
act as sub-advisers with respect to the Funds (each a ``Sub-Adviser'').
Any Sub-Adviser to a Fund will be registered under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Distributor, a Pennsylvania corporation, is a broker-dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
will act as the distributor and principal underwriter of Shares of the
Funds. Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any
distributor of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the
Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser (included in the term ``Distributor''). Any
Distributor will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and
17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2)
of the Act. The requested Order would permit applicants to offer Funds
that utilize the NYSE Proxy Portfolio Methodology. Because the relief
requested is the same as certain of the relief granted by the
Commission under the Reference Order and because the Initial Adviser
has entered into a licensing agreement with NYSE Group, Inc. in order
to offer Funds that utilize the NYSE Proxy Portfolio Methodology,\3\
the Order would incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of
the same relief of the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NYSE Proxy Portfolio Methodology (as defined in the
Reference Order) is the intellectual property of the NYSE Group,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Fund and
to any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the
Initial Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the Initial Adviser (any such entity, along with
the Initial Adviser, included in the term ``Adviser''); (b) offers
exchange-traded shares utilizing active management investment
strategies as contemplated by the Reference Order; and (c) complies
with the terms and conditions of the Order and the terms and conditions
of the Reference Order that are incorporated by reference into the
Order (each such company or series and the Initial Fund, a
``Fund'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and the terms and conditions of the Reference Order that are
incorporated by reference into the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent
with the policies of the registered investment company and the general
purposes of the Act. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in
the Reference Order the requested relief meets the exemptive standards
under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12746 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Summary of the Nationwide Estimated Cost Impacts for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 1.0 INTRODUCTION On December 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) developed National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for halogenated solvent cleaning. The technology based standard controlled emissions of methylene chloride ( MC), perchloroethylene ( PCE), trichloroethylene ( TCE), 1,1,1 trichloroethane ( TCA), carbon tetrachloride ( CT), and chloroform ( C)

from halogenated solvent cleaning machines. Halogenated solvent cleaning does not constitute a distinct industrial category, but is an integral part of many major industries. The HAP, TCA, CT and C are no longer used in solvent cleaning machines.

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act ( CAA) section 112( f), EPA has evaluated the remaining risk to public health and the environment following implementation of the technology based rule and is proposing more stringent standards in order to protect public health with an ample margin of safety.

The EPA is proposing revised standards to limit emissions of methylene chloride ( MC), perchloroethylene ( PCE), and trichloroethylene ( TCE) from existing and new halogenated solvent cleaning machines. In addition, EPA has reviewed the standards as required by section 112 ( d)( 6) of the CAA and has determined that, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies, no further action is necessary at this time to revise the national emission standards. The proposed standards are expected to provide further reductions of MC, PCE, and TCE beyond the 1994 NESHAP, based on application of a facility wide MC,

PCE and TCE emission standards.

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the nationwide cost impacts associated with the proposed options or emission caps developed to control emissions from halogenated solvent cleaning. Costs and emission reductions are presented for each option developed during the analytical phase. These control option requirements were developed based on a residual risk analysis determining cancer and non cancer affects to human health. The options are a beyond the MACT floor options. Costs are presented in 1998 dollars and cost effectiveness estimates are presented in 1998 dollars per kilogram of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) reduced ($/ kg). The methodology for calculating cost effectiveness is based on the 1.1 BACKGROUND The halogenated solvent cleaner NESHAP requires batch vapor solvent cleaning machines and in line solvent cleaning machines to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology for major and area sources; area source batch cold cleaning machines are required to achieve generally available control technology. We currently estimate the number of sources in this source category to be about 3,800 cleaning machines located at 1,900 facilities in the U. S. This estimate is based on information we collected in 1998, a year after compliance with the MACT occurred and should reflect the decreases in HAP emissions and demand that were expected due to implementation of MACT control technologies and work practice standards. The halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP was estimated to reduce nationwide emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from halogenated solvent cleaning machines by 77,400 Mg/ yr ( 85,300 tons per year), or 63 percent by 1997 compared to the emissions that would result in the absence of the standards.

2.0 RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS The residual risk analysis addressed halogenated solvent cleaning machines subject to the 1994 MACT standards ( 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T) and estimates potential risks due to HAP emissions from sources that emit one or more of the regulated HAPs. The risk assessment did not include the HAPs carbon tetrachloride and chloroform because their usage was phased out after the MACT was promulgated. The assessment only considered the inhalation pathway as the primary route of exposure for humans because all of the four remaining HAPs are highly volatile compounds. In addition, multimedia fugacity modeling results indicate that the majority ( over 99 percent) of each of these four source category HAP partitions preferentially to air rather than water, soil, or sediment. The analysis estimated the potential for emissions from this source category to result in increased cancer risk and chronic and acute ( i. e.,

one hour) non cancer hazard.

The baseline residual risk assessment for the halogenated solvent cleaning source category used HAP emissions data from an assessment database that included 1,167 sources. This assessment database represents approximately 61 percent of the 1,900 facilities in the source category. Estimates of maximum individual lifetime cancer risk and chronic non cancer HI as well as distributions of cancer and noncancer risks across the exposed populations were calculated for each facility. Results have been scaled up proportionally to reflect results for the 1,900 facilities in the source category. A summary of the estimated lifetime cancer risks can be found in the Risk Report for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning.

The numbers of facilities in the source category which pose various levels of maximum individual lifetime cancer risks are presented in Table 2 of this preamble. These results show that source category emissions from 539 facilities ( approximately 28 percent of the sources in the source category) were estimated to pose a maximum incremental increase in lifetime cancer risk at or above one in a million. Of the 539 facilities, 124 were found to pose a maximum cancer risk greater than or equal to ten in a million and seven of these facilities were estimated to pose a maximum cancer risk of 100 in a million or more. Six hundred ninety facilities emit only the non carcinogen, 1,1,1 TCA, and therefore pose no cancer risk. Note that the risk estimates summarized in Table 2 of this preamble are the maximum cancer risk estimates for each facility; the estimated risk for the majority of the individuals exposed at each facility will be less.

3.0 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONTROLS There is no additional equipment monitoring or work practice requirements associated with the facility wide annual emissions limit. Compliance with the emission limit is demonstrated by determining the annual PCE, TCE, and MC emissions for all cleaning machines at the facility. This is determined based on records of the amounts and dates of the solvents added to cleaning machines during the year, the amounts and dates of solvents removed from cleaning machines during the year, and the amounts and dates of the solvents removed from cleaning machines in solid waste. Records of the calculation sheets showing how the annual emissions were determined must be maintained.

Reporting requirements include an initial notification report, an initial statement of compliance report, annual compliance reports, and an exceedance report ( required only when an exceedance occurs). Following our initial determination that the individual most exposed to emissions from the category considered exceeds a 1 in 1 million individual cancer risk, our approach to developing residual risk standards is based on a two step determination of acceptable risk and ample margin of safety. The first step,

consideration of acceptable risk, is only a starting point for the analysis that determines the final standards. The second step determines an ample margin of safety, which is the level at which the standards are set.

Emission levels for regulatory option scenarios were derived based on the risk assessment results for the baseline scenario and an analysis of maximum individual cancer risks ( see Section 5). To develop the risk based regulatory option scenarios, all emissions rates in the assessment database were first converted to methylene chloride ( MC) equivalents based on the relative cancer potency of the HAPs emitted. For the assessment of cancer risks, the cancer potency weighted MC equivalent emissions rate was calculated as the estimated post MACT emissions in kg/ yr or lb/ yr times the unit risk estimate ( URE) for the HAP divided by the URE for MC.

For Regulatory Option Scenario 1, EPA assumed that technologies or practices implemented for further post MACT control of HAP emissions would result in each facility emitting no more than 100,000 kg/ yr ( 220,000 lbs/ yr) of MC equivalent HAP. Each of the six evaluated regulatory scenarios are summarized below.

° Regulatory Option Scenario 1  Assumes that all sources would reduce MC equivalent emissions to no more than 100,000 kg/ yr ( 220,000 lbs/ yr).

° Regulatory Option Scenario 2  Assumes that all sources would reduce MC equivalent emissions to no more than 60,000 kg/ yr ( 132,000 lbs/ yr). ° Regulatory Option Scenario 3  Assumes that all sources would reduce MC equivalent emissions to no more than 40,000 kg/ yr ( 88,000 lbs/ yr).

° Regulatory Option Scenario 4  Assumes that all sources would reduce MC equivalent emissions to no more than the 25,000 kg/ yr ( 55,000 lbs/ yr).

° Regulatory Option Scenario 5  Assumes that all sources would reduce MC equivalent emissions to no more than 15,000 kg/ yr ( 33,000 lbs/ yr).

° Regulatory Option Scenario 6  Assumes that all sources would reduce MC equivalent emissions to no more than 6,000 kg/ yr ( 13,200 lbs/ yr).

4.0 COST ANALYSIS The baseline cost analysis for the halogenated solvent cleaning source category used facility data from a database that included 1,167 sources, but not all sources had adequate information for analysis. This assessment database represents approximately 61 percent of the 1,900 facilities in the source category. The numbers of facilities in the source category which pose various levels of maximum individual lifetime cancer risks are presented in Table 1. These results show that source category emissions from 539 facilities ( approximately 28 percent of the sources in the source category) were estimated to pose a maximum incremental increase in lifetime cancer risk at or above one in a million. Of the 539 facilities, 124 were found to pose a maximum cancer risk greater than or equal to ten in a million and seven of these facilities were estimated to pose a maximum cancer risk of 100 in a million or more.

Sixhundred ninety facilities emit only the non carcinogen, 1,1,1 TCA, and therefore pose no cancer risk. Note that the risk estimates summarized in Table 2 of this preamble are the maximum cancer risk estimates for each facility; the estimated risk for the majority of the individuals exposed at each facility will be less. Table 1: Number of Units Subject to Control and Not Subject to Control for Each of the Six Compliance Options 6,000 MC 15,000 MC 25,000 MC 40,000 MC 60,000 MC 100,000 MC Group # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total Total for Units in NEI subject to control beyond MACT 523 51% 381 37% 298 29% 232 23% 154 15% 94 9%

Total for units in NEI NOT subject to control beyond MACT 494 49% 636 63% 719 71% 785 77% 863 85% 923 91%

Grand Total of All Units in NEI 1017 100% 1017 100% 1017 100% 1017 100% 1017 100% 1017 100%

Table 2: Number of Units Assigned to Each Control Option for Each of the Six Compliance Options 6,000 MC 15,000 MC 25,000 MC 40,000 MC 60,000 MC 100,000 MC Control Option # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total # % of Grand Total Vacuum PCE to MC PCE to TCE TCE to MC Retro   1.5 FBR, WC, FRD Retro   1.5 FBR 287 25 39 72 47 53 55%

5% 7% 14%

% 9 % 10 177 20 37 47 63 37 46%

5% 10% 12% 17% 10% 115 17 29 44 45 48 39%

6% 10% 15% 15% 16% 71 15 16 40 45 45 31%

6% 7% 17% 19% 19% 45 10 16 33 14 36 29%

6% 10% 21%

9% 23% 31 5 15 18 14 11 33%

5% 16% 19% 15% 12%

Total for Units in Nei Subject to Control Beyond Mact 1017 100% 1017 100% 298 100% 232 100% 154 100% 94 100% Table 3: Emission Reductions in Tons by Control Option for Each of the Six Compliance Options 6,000 MC 15,000 MC 25,000 MC 40,000 MC 60,000 MC 100,000 MC Control Option Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) %

Vacuum PCE to MC PCE to TCE TCE to MC Retro   1.5 FBR, WC, FRD Retro   1.5 FBR 4,675 254 38 182 69 54 88%

6% 0% 3% 1% 1% 4,675 254 38 182 69 54 86%

6% 0% 3% 4% 1% 3,409 237 81 132 175 124 82%

7% 1% 3% 4% 3% 2,911 220 42 93 238 123 80%

7% 0% 3% 7% 3% 2,318 183 70 160 121 155 77%

7% 1% 5% 4% 5% 1,837 180 98 35 238 85 74%

9% 2% 1% 10%

3%

Total for Units in NEI Subject to Control Beyond MACT 5,273 100% 4,708 100% 4,158 100% 3,526 100% 3,008 100% 2,473 100%

Overall Percent Reduction From Total 6,047 Tons in NEI 87% 78% 69% 60% 50% 41%

Table 4: Emission Reductions in Tons by Hap for Each of the Six Compliance Options 6,000 MC 15,000 MC 25,000 MC 40,000 MC 60,000 MC 100,000 MC Control Option Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) % Emission Reduction ( Tons) %

MC TCE PCE 850 3,092 1,331 16% 59% 25% 699 2,721 1,289 15% 58% 27% 602 2,317 1,239 14% 56% 30% 524 1,932 1,170 14% 53% 32% 453 1,472 1,083 15% 49% 36% 439 1,053 981 18% 43% 40%

TOTAL 5,273 100% 4,708 100% 4,158 100% 3,626 100% 3,008 100% 2,473 100% Table 5: Costs to Units Subject to Control for Each of the Six Compliance Options Costs to Units Subject to Control Beyond MACT 6,000 MC 15,000 MC 25,000 MC 40,000 MC 60,000 MC 100,000 MC Total Capital Costs $ 118,319,131 $ 74,043,063 $ 48,973,569 $ 31,262,367 $ 19,322,823 $ 13,312,783 Annualized Capital Costs $ 11,227,944 $ 7,042,555 $ 4,670,995 $ 2,996,757 $ 1,851,536 $ 1,271,375 O& M Costs $ 251,435 $ 209,325 $ 177,602 $ 190,232 $ 102,485 $ 55,617 Solvent Savings ($ 10,036,034) ($ 8,945,132) ($ 7,861,021) ($ 6,814,394) ($ 5,591,568) ($ 4,522,658)

Total Annual Emission Control Costs $ 1,443,345 ($ 1,693,252) ($ 3,012,424) ($ 3,627,406) ($ 3,637,548) ($ 3,195,667)

For Option 1, we estimate that 66 percent of the affected parent companies are small ( 186 out of 281) according to the SBA size standards. Of these small companies, none of these is expected to have annualized compliance costs of more than 1 percent of sales. For Option 2, we estimate that 66 percent of the affected parent companies are small ( 186 out of 281) according to the SBA size standards. Of these small companies, 3 of these are expected to have annualized compliance costs of more than 1 percent of sales. Of these 3, one is expected to have annualized compliance costs of more than 3 percent of sales.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25515-25521]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10194]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69449/April 25, 2013]

Order Making Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Adjustments to Transaction
Fee Rates

I. Background

    Section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') requires each national securities exchange and national
securities association to pay transaction fees to the Commission.\1\
Specifically, Section 31(b) requires each national securities exchange
to pay to the Commission fees based on the aggregate dollar amount of
sales of certain securities (``covered sales'') transacted on the
exchange.\2\ Section 31(c) requires each national securities
association to pay to the Commission fees based on the aggregate dollar
amount of covered sales transacted by or through any member of the
association other than on an exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee(b).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 31 of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to annually
adjust the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and (c) to a
uniform adjusted rate.\4\ Specifically, the Commission must adjust the
fee rates to a uniform adjusted rate that is reasonably likely to
produce aggregate fee collections (including assessments on security
futures transactions) equal to the regular appropriation to the
Commission for the applicable fiscal year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In some circumstances, the SEC also must make a mid-year
adjustment to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and (c).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee(j)(1) (the Commission must adjust the rates
under Sections 31(b) and (c) to a ``uniform adjusted rate that, when
applied to the baseline estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of
sales for such fiscal year, is reasonably likely to produce
aggregate fee collections under [Section 31] (including assessments
collected under [Section 31(d)]) that are equal to the regular
appropriation to the Commission by Congress for such fiscal
year.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is required to publish notice of the new fee rates
under Section 31 not later than 30 days after the date on which an Act
making a regular appropriation for the applicable fiscal year is
enacted.\6\ On March 26, 2013, the President signed a continuing
resolution that funds the SEC at FY 2012 levels through the remainder
of FY 2013. Consistent with past practice [and guidance from OMB], the
SEC is treating this continuing resolution, which lasts through the
remainder of the fiscal year, as a regular appropriation for FY 2013
for purposes of Section 31 of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rate

    The new fee rate is determined by (1) subtracting the sum of fees
estimated to be collected prior to the effective date of the new fee
rate \7\ and estimated assessments on securities futures transactions
to be collected under Section 31(d) of the Exchange Act for all of
fiscal year 2013 \8\ from an amount equal to the regular appropriation
to the Commission for fiscal year 2013, and (2) dividing the difference
by the estimated aggregate dollar amount of sales for the remainder of
the fiscal year following the effective date of the new fee rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The sum of fees to be collected prior to the effective date
of the new fee rate is determined by applying the current fee rate
to the dollar amount of covered sales prior to the effective date of
the new fee rate. The exchanges and FINRA have provided data on the
dollar amount of covered sales through February 28, 2013. To
calculate the dollar amount of covered sales from that date to the
effective date of the new fee rate, the Division is using the same
methodology it developed in consultation with the CBO and OMB to
estimate the dollar amount of covered sales in prior fiscal years.
An explanation of the methodology appears in Appendix A.
    \8\ The Division is using the same methodology it has used
previously to estimate assessments on securities future transactions
to be collected in fiscal year 2013. An explanation of the
methodology appears in Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regular appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2013 is
$1,321,000,000. The Commission estimates that it will collect
$895,226,704 in fees for the period prior to the effective date of the
new fee rate and $37,356 in assessments on round turn transactions in
securities futures products during all of fiscal year 2013.\9\ Using a
methodology for estimating the aggregate dollar amount of sales for the
remainder of fiscal year 2013 (developed after consultation with the
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget),
the Commission estimates that the aggregate dollar amount of covered
sales for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 to be $24,458,583,925,062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The estimate of fees to be collected prior to the effective
date of the new fee rate is determined by applying the current fee
rate to the dollar amount of covered sales prior to the effective
date of the new fee rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the uniform adjusted rate is computed by
dividing the residual fees to be collected of $425,735,940 by the
estimate of the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales for the
remainder of fiscal year 2013 of $24,458,583,925,062. This results in a
uniform adjusted rate for fiscal year 2013 of $17.40 per million.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Appendix A shows the purely arithmetical process of
calculating the fiscal year 2013 annual adjustment. The appendix
also includes the data used by the Commission in making this
adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Effective Date of the Uniform Adjusted Rate

    Under Section 31(j)(4)(A) of the Exchange Act, the fiscal year 2013
annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and
(c) of the Exchange Act shall take effect on the later of October 1,
2012, or 60 days after the date on which a regular appropriation to the
Commission for fiscal year 2012 is enacted.\11\ The regular
appropriation to the Commission for fiscal year 2013 was enacted on
March 26, 2013, and accordingly, the new fee rates applicable under
Sections 31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act will take effect on May 25,
2013.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78ee(j)(4)(A).
    \12\ As noted above, consistent with past practice [and guidance
from OMB], the SEC is treating the continuing resolution enacted on
March 26, 2013 as a regular appropriation for FY 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 31 of the Exchange Act,
    It is hereby ordered that the fee rates applicable under Sections
31(b) and (c) of the Exchange Act shall be $17.40 per $1,000,000
effective on May 25, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

Appendix A

    This appendix provides the formula for determining the annual
adjustment to the fee rates applicable under Sections 31(b) and (c)
of the Exchange Act for fiscal year 2013. Section 31 of the Exchange
Act requires the fee rates to be adjusted so that it is reasonably
likely that the Commission will collect aggregate fees equal to its
regular appropriation for fiscal year 2013.
    To make the adjustment, the Commission must project the
aggregate dollar amount of covered sales of securities on the
securities exchanges and certain over-the-counter markets over the
course of the year. The fee rate equals the ratio of the
Commission's regular appropriation for fiscal year 2013 (less the
sum of fees to be collected during fiscal year 2013 prior to the
effective date of the new fee rate and aggregate assessments on
security futures transactions during fiscal year 2013) to the
projected aggregate dollar amount of covered sales for fiscal year
2013 (less the aggregate dollar amount of covered sales prior to the
effective date of the new fee rate).
    For 2013, the Commission has estimated the aggregate dollar
amount of covered sales by projecting forward the trend established
in the previous decade. More specifically, the dollar amount of
covered sales was forecasted for months subsequent to February 2013,
the last month for which the

Commission has data on the dollar volume of covered sales.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To determine the availability of data, the Commission
compares the date of the appropriation with the date the transaction
data are due from the exchanges (10 business days after the end of
the month). If the business day following the date of the
appropriation is equal to or subsequent to the date the data are due
from the exchanges, the Commission uses these data. The
appropriation was signed on March 26, 2013. The first business day
after this date was March 27, 2013. Data for February were due from
the exchanges on March 14. So the Commission used February 2013 and
earlier data to forecast volume for March 2013 and later months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe this process in detail.

A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Dollar Amount of Covered Sales
for Fiscal Year 2013

    First, calculate the average daily dollar amount of covered
sales (ADS) for each month in the sample (February 2003-February
2013). The monthly aggregate dollar amount of covered sales
(exchange plus certain over-the-counter markets) is presented in
column C of Table A.
    Next, calculate the change in the natural logarithm of ADS from
month to month. The average monthly percentage growth of ADS over
the entire sample is 0.0102 and the standard deviation is 0.122.
Assuming the monthly percentage change in ADS follows a random walk,
calculating the expected monthly percentage growth rate for the full
sample is straightforward. The expected monthly percentage growth
rate of ADS is 1.78%.
    Now, use the expected monthly percentage growth rate to forecast
total dollar volume. For example, one can use the ADS for February
2013 ($252,666,501,426) to forecast ADS for March 2013
($257,167,513,594 = $252,666,501,426 x 1.0178).\14\ Multiply by the
number of trading days in March 2013 (20) to obtain a forecast of
the total dollar volume for the month ($5,143,350,271,889). Repeat
the method to generate forecasts for subsequent months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The value 1.0178 has been rounded. All computations are
done with the unrounded value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The forecasts for total dollar volume of covered sales are in
column G of Table A. The following is a more formal (mathematical)
description of the procedure:
    1. Divide each month's total dollar volume (column C) by the
number of trading days in that month (column B) to obtain the
average daily dollar volume (ADS, column D).
    2. For each month t, calculate the change in ADS from the
previous month as [Delta]t = log (ADSt/
ADSt-1), where log (x) denotes the natural logarithm of
x.
    3. Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the series
{[Delta]1, [Delta]2, [hellip],
[Delta]120{time} . These are given by [mu] = 0.0102 and
[sigma] = 0.122, respectively.
    4. Assume that the natural logarithm of ADS follows a random
walk, so that [Delta]s and [Delta]t are
statistically independent for any two months s and t.
    5. Under the assumption that [Delta]t is normally
distributed, the expected value of ADSt/ADSt-1
is given by exp ([mu] + [sigma]\2\/2), or on average ADSt
= 1.0178 x ADSt-1.
    6. For March 2013, this gives a forecast ADS of 1.0178 x
$252,666,501,426 = $257,167,513,594. Multiply this figure by the 20
trading days in March 2013 to obtain a total dollar volume forecast
of $5,143,350,271,889.
    7. For April 2013, multiply the March 2013 ADS forecast by
1.0178 to obtain a forecast ADS of $261,748,706,992. Multiply this
figure by the 22 trading days in April 2013 to obtain a total dollar
volume forecast of $5,758,471,553,822.
    8. Repeat this procedure for subsequent months.

B. Using the Forecasts From A To Calculate the New Fee Rate

    1. Use Table A to estimate fees collected for the period 10/1/12
through 5/24/13. The projected aggregate dollar amount of covered
sales for this period is $39,965,477,866,718. Actual and projected
fee collections at the current fee rate of 0.0000224 are
$895,226,704.
    2. Estimate the amount of assessments on securities futures
products collected during 10/1/12 and 9/30/13 to be $37,356 by
projecting a 1.78% monthly increase from a base of $3,038 in
February 2013.
    3. Subtract the amounts $895,226,704 and $37,356 from the target
offsetting collection amount set by Congress of $1,321,000,000
leaving $425,735,940 to be collected on dollar volume for the period
5/25/13 through 9/30/13.
    4. Use Table A to estimate dollar volume for the period 5/25/13
through 9/30/13. The estimate is $24,458,583,925,062. Finally,
compute the fee rate required to produce the additional $425,735,940
in revenue. This rate is $425,735,940 divided by $24,458,583,925,062
or 0.0000174064.
    5. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a
rate of .0000174 (or $17.40 per million).
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01MY13.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01MY13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01MY13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01MY13.003

[FR Doc. 2013-10194 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69722-69723]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29074]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-8891-8]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Protection
Strategies Incorporated

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that EPA
has recently learned of a corporate merger/acquisition involving a
contractor cleared for access to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) confidential business information and to provide notice that
this contract has been extended until December 31, 2011. Protection
Strategies Incorporated (PSI) has been the owner of Eagle Technologies
Incorporated (Eagle) since March 2010. Eagle's previous contract (EP-W-
06-029) expired September 30, 2011. A bridge contract, signed on
September 30, 2011, with Eagle's successor PSI, is currently in place
and will expire December 31, 2011. EPA has authorized its contractor,
PSI of Arlington, VA, to access information which has been submitted to
EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed
or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than
November 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Pamela Moseley, Information Management Division (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8956; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave. Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Docket. The OPPT Docket is
located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg.,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-11-H-000885, contractor PSI of 2300
Ninth Street South, Suite 501, Arlington, VA, will assist OPPT in
providing support for work on alarms, card readers, doors, locks, and
keys. The contractor will also escort workers or maintenance personnel
during security hours.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number EP-11-H-000885, PSI will require access to CBI
under all sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified
under the contract. PSI personnel will be given access to information
submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information
may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all

sections of TSCA that EPA may provide PSI access to these CBI materials
on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this
contract will take place at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's
TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until December
31, 2011. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue
for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    PSI personnel will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and
will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are
permitted access to TSCA CBI.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information.

    Dated: October 17, 2011.
Mario Caraballo,
Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2011-29074 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P