[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 78967]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32499]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport & Airport Industrial Park
Liberal, KS.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport & Airport
Industrial Park, Liberal, Kansas, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Debra S. Giskie, Airport Manager, Liberal Mid-
America Regional Airport & Airport Industrial Park, City of Liberal,
P.O. Box 2199, Liberal, KS 67901,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 0.33 acres of airport property at the
Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport & Airport Industrial Park (LBL)
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On June 24, 2011, the
Airport Manager at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport requested
from the FAA that approximately 0.33 acres of property be released for
sale to Allan and Charlene Classen for use as a repair/maintenance
operation. On October 31, 2011, the FAA determined that the request to
release property at the Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport and
Airport Industrial Park (LBL) submitted by the Sponsor meets the
procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the
release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation
needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in
part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport and Airport Industrial Park
(LBL) is proposing the release of one parcel, of 0.33 acres, more or
less. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation
Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired
airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the
subject property will result in the land at the Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport and Airport Industrial Park (LBL) being changed from
aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the lands from the
conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii),
the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will
be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement
project for general aviation facilities at the Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport and Airport Industrial Park.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport and Airport Industrial Park.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 30, 2011.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-32499 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


That portion of Nevada County, which lies west of a line, described as
follows: beginning at

the Nevada-Placer County

boundary and running north

along the western boundaries of Sections 24, 13, 12, 1, Township 17
North, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and Sections 36,
25, 24, 13, 12, Township 18 North, Range 14 East to the Nevada-Sierra
County boundary.	..........

Nonattainment

	INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Moderate

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
otherwise noted.

b The boundaries for these designated areas are based on coordinates of
latitude and longitude derived from EPA Region 9’s GIS database and
are illustrated in a map entitled ‘‘Eastern San Diego County
Attainment Areas for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ dated March 9, 2004,
including an attached set of coordinates. The map and attached set of
coordinates are available at EPA’s Region 9 Air Division office. The
designated areas roughly approximate the boundaries of the reservations
for these tribes, but their inclusion in this table is intended for CAA
planning purposes only and is not intended to be a federal determination
of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Also, the specific listing
of these tribes in this table does not confer, deny, or withdraw Federal
recognition of any of the tribes so listed nor any of the tribes not
listed.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted

* * * * *

10.  In §81.306, the table entitled “Colorado-- Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Love., CO as follows:

§81.306 Colorado

* * * * *

COLORADO—OZONE [8-Hour Standard]

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/classification

 	Date1	 	Type	Date1	 	Type

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Love., CO:

	Adams County .....................

Arapahoe County ..................

Boulder County (includes part of Rocky Mtn. Nat. Park).............

Broomfield County ................

Denver County ....................

Douglas County ...................

Jefferson County .................

Larimer County (part) (includes part of Rocky Mtn. Nat. Park). That
portion of the county that lies south of a line described as follows:
Beginning at a point on Larimer County’s eastern boundary and Weld
County’s western boundary intersected by 40 degrees, 42 minutes, and
47.1 seconds north latitude, proceed west to a point defined by the
intersection of 40 degrees, 42 minutes, 47.1 seconds north latitude and
105 degrees, 29 minutes, and 40.0 seconds west longitude, thence proceed
south on 105 degrees, 29 minutes, 40.0 seconds west longitude to the
intersection with 40 degrees, 33 minutes and 17.4 seconds north
latitude, thence proceed west on 40 degrees, 33 minutes, 17.4 seconds
north latitude until this line intersects Larimer County’s western
boundary and Grand County’s eastern boundary.

Weld County (part) ..............

That portion of the county that lies south of a line described as
follows: Beginning at a point on Weld County’s eastern boundary and
Logan County’s western boundary intersected by 40 degrees, 42 minutes,
47.1 seconds north latitude, proceed west on 40 degrees, 42 minutes,
47.1 seconds north latitude until this line intersects Weld County’s
western boundary and Larimer County’s eastern boundary.

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
otherwise noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

2 Early Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until November 20,
2007.

* * * * *

11.  In §81.329, the table entitled “Nevada--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for Las Vegas, NV as
follows:

§81.329 Nevada

* * * * *

NEVADA—OZONE [8-Hour Standard]

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/classification

 	Date1	 	Type	Date1	 	Type

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Las Vegas, NV:

Clark County.......................

That portion of Clark County that lies in hydrographic areas 164A, 164B,
165, 166, 167, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, and 218 but excluding the Moapa
River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. b

2

Nonattainment	[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Marginal

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
otherwise noted.

b The use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for purposes
of CAA planning only and is not intended to be a federal determination
of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor does the specific
listing of the Tribes in this table confer, deny or withdraw Federal
recognition of any of the Tribes listed or not listed.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted

2The effective date is September 13, 2004

* * * * *

12.  In §81.833, the table entitled “New York--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entries for the following:

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Essex County (Whiteface Mtn.), NY

Jamestown, NY

Rochester, NY

§81.333 New York

* * * * *

NEW YORK—OZONE [8-Hour Standard]

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/classification

 	Date1	 	Type	Date1	 	Type

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY:

Albany County ....................

Greene County ....................

Montgomery County ................

Rensselaer County ................

Saratoga County ..................

Schenectady County ...............

Schoharie County .................

	..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

	[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY:

Erie County ......................

Niagara County ...................

..........

..........

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Essex County (Whiteface Mtn.), NY:

Essex County (part) The portion of Whiteface Mountain above 1,900 feet
in elevation in Essex County.	..........

Nonattainment	[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Marginal

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Jamestown, NY:

Chautauqua County .................	..........

Nonattainment	[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Moderate

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Rochester, NY:

Genesee County ....................

Livingston County .................

Monroe County .....................

Ontario County ....................

Orleans County ....................

Wayne County ......................

..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

	[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

Subpart 2/ Marginal

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
otherwise noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

2 The effective date is September 13, 2004

* * * * *

13.  In §81.339 the table entitled “Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entries for Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley, PA as follows:

§81.339 Pennsylvania

* * * * *

PENNSYLVANIA—OZONE [8-Hour Standard]

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/classification

 	Date1	 	Type	Date1	 	Type

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA:

Allegheny County .................

Armstrong County .................

Beaver County ....................

Butler County ....................

Fayette County ...................

Washington County ................

Westmoreland County ..............

	..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

..........

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

Nonattainment

	[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER FR PUBLICATION]

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

Subpart 2/ Moderate

*	*	*	*	*	*	*

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except
otherwise noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted

2 The effective date is September 13, 2004

* * * * *

 74 FR 2936, January 16, 2009.

  As the Court made clear in its decision on rehearing, the CAA does not
mandate coverage under subpart 2 of all areas designated nonattainment
for an ozone NAAQS. As EPA moves forward to develop an implementation
strategy for any future new ozone NAAQS, we may consider whether subpart
1 alone might apply for some areas for purposes of implementing that
NAAQS.

 We note that areas subject to subpart 2 are also subject to subpart 1
to the extent subpart 1 specifies requirements that are not suspended by
more specific obligations under subpart 2.

4 Denver’s special circumstances as a former EAC area were discussed
in the proposal. (74 FR 2939-2941). The nonattainment designation for
the Denver area became effective November 20, 2007. (72 FR 53952 and
53953, September 21, 2007)

 Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA allows states to request nonattainment
areas to be redesignated to attainment provided certain criteria are met
that include an approved SIP, a determination that air quality
improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
an approved maintenance plan, and other section 110 and part D
requirements.

 Under 40 CFR 51.907, an area would be eligible for the first 1 year
extension of its attainment date for the 1997 ozone standard if the  4th
highest daily maximum 8-hour average in 2006 is equal to or less than
0.084 ppm.

 Under 40 CFR 50.907, an area is eligible for the second 1-year
extension if the 2-year average of 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
averages for 2006 and 2007 at the monitor with the highest level is
equal to or less than 0.084 ppm.

 The seven areas that have received Clean Data Determinations are
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA, 76 FR 31237-39, May 31, 2011;
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Jamestown, NY and Essex County (Whiteface
Mountain), 74 FR 63993, December 7, 2009; Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY,
Rochester, NY, 73 FR 15672, March 25, 2008; and Clark County (Las
Vegas), NV, 76 FR 17343, March 29, 2011.

 EPA guidance with respect to redesignations to attainment can be found
in a memorandum entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992.  See
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/redesignmem090492.pdf.  This
memorandum notes, for example, that, for the purposes of redesignation,
a state must meet the applicable requirements of section 110 and Part D
that become due prior to the state’s submittal of a complete
redesignation request to EPA. For the purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request, the EPA will not need to consider the required
SIP elements that became due after submittal of the redesignation
request. However, such requirements remain due until EPA completes final
action approving a redesignation request.

 Moderate ozone nonattainment areas are required to satisfy both interim
emissions tests in order to demonstrate conformity. Therefore, they must
demonstrate that emissions in the build scenario are less than the
no-build scenario and that emissions in the build scenario are less than
emissions in the 2002 base year. (40 CFR 93.119(b)(1)).

 Memorandum of March 19, 2007 from William L. Wehrum to EPA Regional
Administrators, re: ”Impacts of the Court Decision on the Phase 1
Ozone Implementation Rule” (response to Question 2) and memorandum of
June 15, 2007, from Robert J. Meyers to Regional Administrators, re:
“Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit on our Petition for Rehearing of the Phase 1 Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS” (Implications for Subpart 1 Areas).

 We do not agree with arguments that we should allow for a Marginal area
classification with an attainment date in the future. As noted in
several places, Marginal areas are presumed capable of attaining quickly
without the adoption of additional local controls. For that reason,
there are virtually no mandated local control requirements for Marginal
areas under section 182(a), nor is there a requirement to develop an
attainment demonstration. Thus, to the extent an area would have been
classified as Marginal based on its 2001-2003 design value yet failed to
attain by June 2007, we see no argument that such areas would have
attained if EPA had “correctly” classified them as Marginal in 2004.
(We note that many of the areas originally identified as subpart 1 have
indeed attained and been redesignated as attainment.)

 Note that if the area is nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour standard,
for purposes of the 1997 standard, it is subject to nonattainment NSR,
contingency measures and (if classified as Severe or Extreme for the
1997 ozone NAAQS) the section 185 penalty fee provision.

 We noted in the proposal that the Court’s June 2007 clarification,
South Coast, 489 F3d 1245, confirms that the December 2006 decision was
not intended to establish a requirement that areas continue to
demonstrate conformity under the 1-hour ozone standard for
anti-backsliding purposes.  Therefore, no revisions were proposed to 40
CFR 51.905(e)(3).  Section 40 CFR 51.905(e)(3) establishes that
conformity determinations for the 1-hour standard are not required
beginning 1 year after the effective date of the revocation of the
1-hour standard and any state conformity provisions in an applicable SIP
that require 1-hour ozone conformity determinations are no longer
federally enforceable. This provision does not require revision in light
of the Court’s decision and clarification, because the Court did not
require conformity determinations for the 1-hour standard, and existing
regulations already implement the Court’s holding that 8-hour ozone
nonattainment and maintenance areas must use 1-hour ozone budgets to
determine conformity to the 1997 8-hour standard until such time as
8-hour ozone budgets are approved or found adequate for the area.
Therefore, current transportation conformity-related regulations set
forth in 40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.905(e)(3), and the general
conformity regulations in 40 CFR part 93 are consistent with the
Court’s decision and clarification on the Phase 1 Rule and do not
require revision.

 Robert J. Meyers Memorandum, October 3, 2007, New Source Review (NSR)
Aspects of the Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit on the Phase 1 Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

  That is, between the effective date of the initial area designations
for the 1997 8-hour standard and the date of the final D.C. Circuit
Court ruling on rehearing of the South Coast case.

 The preamble to the Phase 1 Rule clarified that, “it is appropriate
to maintain these mandated controls to remain as part of the implemented
SIP until an area attains the 8-hour NAAQS and is redesignated to
attainment.” (69 FR 23983). This accompanying preamble text clarifies
that an area must not only attain, but also must be redesignated to
attainment prior to shifting any “applicable requirements” to
contingency measures. (69 FR 23982-83). This is further supported by the
portion of section 51.905(b) that provides for the shifting of the
1-hour anti-backsliding measures to contingency measures. Such a shift
can occur only in the context of an approved section 175A maintenance
plan.

 In addition, in June 2003, we stayed our authority to apply the
revocation rule pending our reconsideration in the implementation rule
for the 1997 NAAQS of the basis for revocation. (68 FR 38160, June 26,
2003). We completed that reconsideration in the Phase 1 Rule, which was
published in the Federal Register of April 30, 2004. (69 FR 23951).

 Early Action Compacts (EAC) allowed states to pledge to meet the 1997
8-hour ozone standard earlier than required. State seeking an EAC must
meet a number of criteria and must agree to meet certain milestones. The
most significant milestone was that the EAC areas had to be in
attainment by December 31, 2007, based on air quality data from 2005,
2006, and 2007.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES   93


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3667-3668]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01074]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 6c-7; SEC File No. 270-269, OMB Control No. 3235-0276.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 6c-7 (17 CFR 270.6c-7) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``1940 Act'') provides exemption from
certain provisions of Sections 22(e) and 27 of the 1940 Act for
registered separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts to
certain employees of Texas institutions of higher education
participating in the Texas Optional Retirement Program. There are
approximately 50 registrants governed by Rule 6c-7. The burden of
compliance with Rule 6c-7, in connection with the registrants obtaining
from a purchaser, prior to or at the time of purchase, a signed
document acknowledging the restrictions on redeem ability imposed by
Texas law, is estimated to be approximately 3 minutes of professional
time per response for each of approximately 2300 purchasers annually
(at an estimated $64 per hour),\1\ for a total annual burden of 115
hours (at a total annual cost of $7,360).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ $64/hour figure for a Compliance Clerk is from SIFMA's
Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013 surevy, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work year and
multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules or forms. The Commission does not include in the
estimate of average burden hours the time preparing registration
statements and sales literature disclosure regarding the restrictions
on redeem ability imposed by Texas law. The estimate of burden hours
for completing the relevant registration statements are reported on the
separate PRA submissions for those statements. (See the separate PRA
submissions for Form N-3 (17 CFR 274.11b) and Form N-4 (17 CFR
274.11c).)

    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send
an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 16, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01074 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Dear Partners,

	The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting feedback
from Partners on their experiences and suggestions under the Schools
Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3).  On an annual basis, we will ask
Partners to complete the enclosed survey and return it to us.  The
survey helps us learn about your accomplishments and the impacts being
made in schools.  It also helps us identify needs and concerns that you
have and how best to address them.  Finally, it helps us determine the
future direction of the Program.

The survey is organized as follows:

Part 1 asks for general information about your company (e.g., how you
became aware of the SC3 Program).

Part 2 asks for information on the services and resources that your
company has provided to schools (e.g., support on chemical inventories,
etc.).

Part 3 asks for lessons learned under the Program (e.g., your successes
and barriers to success) that can be shared with others.  Part 3 also
asks about your future involvement under the Program.

Worksheets are attached at the end of the survey to help you provide
some responses.

Each question in the survey includes brief instructions on how to
provide a response.  Please enter your responses electronically into the
spaces provided on the survey.  If additional space is needed, please
attach additional pages.  We also would welcome any of your work
products that can be shared with others at the SC3 web pages (e.g.,
training materials that you developed).  Finally, if you completed a SC3
Survey last year, please use that version to respond to this year’s
survey.  Please update it for the past 12 months and submit it to us.

Surveys should be submitted no later than TBD of each year by any of the
following methods:

1.	Emailed to:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

Faxed to:<PHONE_NUMBER> (c/o Cynthia Merse).

Special delivery (e.g., FedEx) to:

Cynthia Merse, N-6935

Two Potomac Yard

2733 S. Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Cynthia Merse
at EPA by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) or e-mail (  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>).  Thanks in
advance for your timely completion of the survey.

Sincerely,

	TBD

Office of Solid Waste

Enclosure

DRAFT SURVEY INSTRUMENT:

SCHOOLS CHEMICAL CLEANOUT CAMPAIGN (SC3)

PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ON PARTNER

1.1  	How did your company become aware of the SC3 Partner Program?
(Check all that apply.)

	  FORMCHECKBOX    SC3 web site

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Trade organization

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Newsletter or other print media

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Conference or exhibition

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Word of mouth

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

1.2 	Why did your company choose to become involved in SC3 activities?
Please review the possible reasons for joining SC3 in the table.  Place
an “X” in the appropriate box to indicate the relevance of each
reason based on a 1 to 5 scale (1 means “completely irrelevant” and
5 means “highly relevant.”  Please include other reasons in the
table if needed and indicate their relevance.

Possible Reasons for Joining SC3	Relevance to Your Company

	1

(Completely irrelevant)	2	3	4	5

(Highly relevant)

Enhance your company’s relationship with the community	  FORMCHECKBOX
	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX

Carry out the organizational mission or responsibility of your company
FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX
FORMCHECKBOX

Establish new business relationships (e.g., business development)
FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX
FORMCHECKBOX

Enhance existing business relationships 	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX
 	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX

Obtain credit under Performance Track	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX
 FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX

Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT
FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX  	  FORMCHECKBOX
FORMCHECKBOX

1.3 	Has your company conducted chemical inventories, cleanouts and/or
other chemical management activities at schools prior to your
involvement with SC3?

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

1.4	How many hours and dollars has your company spent in providing
services and resources to schools since joining the Program?  Please
provide your response in Worksheet 1 at the end of this survey.

1.5	Has your company encouraged other companies or associations to join
SC3?  If you select “No,” please briefly explain why not.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMTEXT

1.6	Has your company encouraged schools to join SC3?  If you select
“No,” please briefly explain why not.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMTEXT

Does your company partner with EPA in any other Partnership Program(s)?
(Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Performance Track

	  FORMCHECKBOX    WasteWise

	  FORMCHECKBOX    National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
(NPEP)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

PART 2: DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND RESOURCES PROVIDED

2.1 	Chemical Inventory

2.1.1	Has your company performed a chemical inventory at a school since
joining the program?  If you select “Yes,” please complete the
remainder of this section.  If you select “No,” proceed to section
2.2.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

Please indicate the number of schools that have received support in
chemical inventories from your company and the approximate number of
students and staff in those schools.  (Information on school enrollment
may be available on-line.)

Number of Schools	Number of Students	Number of

Staff

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Were these schools performing chemical inventories prior to your
involvement with them? (Additional space is provided below if you need
to explain your answer.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

  FORMTEXT

2.1.4	What chemical inventory activities has your company performed
since joining the Program? (Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Identified possible locations of chemicals before
walk-through/inspection

  FORMCHECKBOX    Performed walk-through/inspection of all relevant
locations for chemicals

  FORMCHECKBOX    Addressed safety hazards during
walk-through/inspection (e.g., developed a plan to prevent and clean up
spills)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Documented chemicals found

  FORMCHECKBOX    Established a sustainable chemical inventory program
(i.e., a permanent program)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

2.1.5	What chemicals have you assisted in inventorying since joining the
Program?  Please provide your response in Worksheet 2 at the end of this
survey.

2.1.6	Did your company encounter unknown chemicals (i.e.,
“unknowns”) during the inventory process?  If you select “Yes,”
please respond to Question 2.1.7.  If you select “No,” proceed to
section 2.2.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

	  FORMCHECKBOX    No

2.1.7	What actions did you take in addressing unknown chemicals during
the inventory?  (Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX   Sent unknowns to a lab for testing before offsite
shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX  	Tested unknowns on site (e.g., by contractor) before
offsite shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX    Used non-testing methods to characterize unknowns
(e.g., by interviewing faculty)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Did not characterize unknowns before offsite shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX    Removed unknowns to a safe location pending offsite
shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX    Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

2.2	Training and Education

2.2.1	Has your company assisted in developing and/or delivering training
or education at a school since joining the program?  If you select
“Yes,” please complete the remainder of this section.  If you select
“No,” proceed to section 2.3.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

Please indicate the number of schools that have received
training/educational support from your company and the approximate
number of students and staff that have received this training/education.

Number of Schools	Number of Students	Number of

Staff

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Was the school (or schools) providing comparable training or education
prior to your involvement with it?  (Additional space is provided below
if you need to explain your answer.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

  FORMTEXT

Please describe your trainings/education (e.g., recipients and frequency
of

trainings) by completing Worksheet 3 at the end of this survey.

2.2.5   What types of training has your company helped to provide to
schools?  Please review the table below to see if you have provided any
of the types of trainings listed.  If you have, please approximate the
cumulative duration (in hours) of that training.  For example, if you
provided five two-hour classroom trainings, you would enter “10
hours” into the shaded cell for classroom training.  Note:  If you
have not provided a type of training shown in the table, then enter
“N/A” into its shaded cell.

Types of Training:	Length of Training (hrs):

Classroom training	            FORMTEXT

Emergency exercises (e.g., evacuation exercises)	            FORMTEXT

On-the-job training (e.g., for faculty, maintenance staff)
FORMTEXT

Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT
  FORMTEXT

2.2.6	Has your company assisted in the development of a sustainable
training program for schools (i.e., a training program that will be
conducted on a permanent basis by the school)?  (If you select “No,”
please briefly explain if you plan to in the future.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

	  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMTEXT

2.3	Chemical Management Program

2.3.1	Has your company assisted in developing a chemical management
program for a school since joining the program?  If you select
“Yes,” please complete the remainder of this section.  If you select
“No,” proceed to section 2.4.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

Please indicate the number of schools that have received support in
chemical management from your company and the approximate number of
students and staff in those schools. (Information on school enrollment
may be available on-line.)

Number of Schools	Number of Students	Number of

Staff

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Did these schools have a chemical management program in place prior to
your involvement with them? (Additional space is provided below if you
need to explain your answer.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

  FORMTEXT

2.3.4	What elements of a chemical management program did your company
help schools to develop, implement, and/or fund?  (Check all that
apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX  	Purchasing of chemicals (e.g., how to purchase fewer
and/or less toxic chemicals)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Chemical inventory

  FORMCHECKBOX    Storage of chemicals

  FORMCHECKBOX  	Chemical usage (e.g., changes in a school’s
laboratory practices to minimize the quantity of chemicals used in
experiments)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Regulatory compliance

  FORMCHECKBOX    Chemical waste collection, onsite storage and disposal

  FORMCHECKBOX    Labeling

  FORMCHECKBOX    Budgeting for chemical management

  FORMCHECKBOX    Training

  FORMCHECKBOX    Safety

  FORMCHECKBOX    Development/implementation of school policies, plans
and/or procedures on proper chemical management

  FORMCHECKBOX    Development/implementation of performance goals and
measures to gauge chemical management success

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

2.4	Packaging, Removing and Disposing of Chemical Waste

2.4.1	Has your company assisted in packaging, removing and/or disposing
of chemical waste (i.e., chemical cleanouts) since joining the program?
If you select “Yes,” please complete the remainder of this section.
If you select “No,” proceed to section 2.5.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

Please indicate the number of schools that have received support in
chemical cleanouts from your company since joining the Program and the
approximate number of students and staff in those schools.  (Information
on school enrollment may be available on-line.) In addition, please
indicate the total number of cleanouts that your company has supported.

Number of Schools	Number of Students	Number of

Staff	Number of

Cleanouts

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

Were these schools cleaning out their chemicals prior to your
involvement with them? (Additional space is provided below if you need
to explain your answer.)  If you select “No,” please answer Question
2.4.4 below.  If you select “Yes,” proceed to Question 2.4.5.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

  FORMTEXT

Why had the school(s) not removed the chemicals on its own prior to your
involvement?  (Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    School was not aware of the problem or need

  FORMCHECKBOX    School lacked the technical expertise/personnel

  FORMCHECKBOX    School lacked the financial resources

  FORMCHECKBOX    There was resistance within the school

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

2.4.5  	What activities related to packaging, removing and disposing of
chemical waste has your company performed since joining the program?
(Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Collecting the chemical waste from individual rooms in
the school

  FORMCHECKBOX    Performing testing/characterization of chemical waste

  FORMCHECKBOX    Packaging the chemical waste for offsite shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX    Storing the chemical waste prior to offsite shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX    Preparing required paperwork, if any (e.g., shipping
paper)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

2.4.6	Did your company hire a contractor for chemical packaging,
removal, and/or disposal?  If you select “Yes,” please complete the
next question.  If you select “No,” proceed to Question 2.4.8.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

2.4.7  	What activities did the contractor perform?  (Check all that
apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Collected the chemical waste from individual rooms in
the school

  FORMCHECKBOX    Performed testing/characterization of chemical waste

  FORMCHECKBOX    Packaged the chemical waste for offsite shipment

  FORMCHECKBOX    Prepared required paperwork, if any (e.g., shipping
paper)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Accepted the chemical waste shipment for management
and disposal

  FORMCHECKBOX    Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

  FORMCHECKBOX    Do not know

What chemicals have you assisted in cleaning out since joining the
program? Please provide your response in Worksheet 4 at the end of the
survey.

What is your total expenditure for removing chemicals from schools since
joining the program?  This should include any expenditure for
testing/characterization, packaging, transportation, and offsite
management/disposal.

  FORMCHECKBOX   Less than $1,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $1,001 to $3,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $3,001 to $5,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $5,001 to $7,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $7,001 to $9,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $9,001 to $11,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   If more than $11,000, please estimate a range (e.g.,
$13,000 to $15,000):

     $  FORMTEXT         to $  FORMTEXT

2.5	Outreach

2.5.1	Has your company provided outreach in connection with SC3 since
joining the program?  If you select “Yes,” please complete the
remainder of this section.  If you select “No,” proceed to Part 3.

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

2.5.2	What was your company’s goal(s) in performing these outreach
efforts? (Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX    Raise public awareness of SC3

  FORMCHECKBOX    Encourage organizations to join SC3

  FORMCHECKBOX    Raise awareness of the general need for chemical
safety, management, and removals in schools

2.5.3 	Please describe your outreach efforts (e.g., types of recipients
and outreach methods) by completing Worksheet 5 at the end of this
survey

PART 3: SUCCESSES, BARRIERS AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES

3.1	Have your company’s objectives and expectations for joining the
SC3 Program been realized to your satisfaction?

  FORMCHECKBOX    Yes

  FORMCHECKBOX    No

3.2  	What factors influence your company’s decision to continue in
the Program?  (Check all that apply.)

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Your company’s ability to find and partner with new
schools in need of support

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Availability of resources in your company (e.g.,
money, personnel with relevant

                   expertise) to sustain your ongoing efforts

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Continued involvement by EPA to address your needs
and concerns

	  FORMCHECKBOX    Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

3.3	What are your company’s plans under the SC3 Program over the
coming years?  (Check all that apply.)

	  FORMCHECKBOX   Partnering with additional schools

	  FORMCHECKBOX   Continuing to work with existing schools

	  FORMCHECKBOX   Encouraging other companies to join in the future

              FORMCHECKBOX   Other, please specify:   FORMTEXT

3.4	What is your most prohibitive barrier to removing chemicals from
schools and/or implementing a responsible chemical management program?
(Select one.)

  FORMCHECKBOX   Expense

  FORMCHECKBOX   Liability

  FORMCHECKBOX   Resistance from schools

  FORMCHECKBOX   Other, please specify:

3.5 	EPA is interested in collecting useful lessons that Partners have
learned under SC3 and sharing them with others, e.g., at the EPA web
site.  If you have a success story that may be helpful to others, please
describe it briefly.

  FORMTEXT

3.6	EPA would like to collect best practices for conducting clean-outs
or other activities under SC3 and share them with others, e.g., at the
EPA web site.  If you have identified or used any best practices that
may be helpful to others, please describe them briefly.

  FORMTEXT

3.7	EPA would like to identify ways to encourage other organizations to
join SC3.  We are interested in hearing your suggestions on methods that
we should be using.  Please describe them below.

  FORMTEXT

3.8	How can EPA encourage existing Partners to continue their efforts
under SC3?  (Check all that apply.)

  FORMCHECKBOX   Hold an annual awards ceremony to recognize high
achievers

  FORMCHECKBOX   Identify Partners (e.g., by company name) on EPA web
site when they achieve specified milestones or distinctions during the
year (e.g., for “most active” Partners”)

  FORMCHECKBOX  	Issue certificate, plaque, or other item of recognition
when a Partner meets specified milestones or distinctions (e.g.,
performs a cleanout).

  FORMCHECKBOX   Help Partners find more schools to partner with.

  FORMCHECKBOX   Help Partners overcome the barrier identified in
Question 3.3.

3.9	Do you have any suggestions on how EPA can improve the resources
available at the SC3 web site?  Please be as specific as possible (e.g.,
identify the specific item(s) on the web site that you are referring
to).

  FORMTEXT

 Worksheet 1:  Total Hours and Dollars Spent by Partner in Providing
Services and Resources under SC3

I.	Total Hours Spent by Your Company

Please estimate the number of hours that the employees of your company
have spent collectively in providing services and resources since
joining the Program.

Hours Spent Providing SC3 Services and Resources

  FORMCHECKBOX   Less than 100 hours

  FORMCHECKBOX   101 to 200 hours

  FORMCHECKBOX   201 to 300 hours

  FORMCHECKBOX   301 to 400 hours

  FORMCHECKBOX   401 to 500 hours

  FORMCHECKBOX   Greater than 500 hours

(please estimate a range, e.g., "600 to 700 hours”):   FORMTEXT
       hrs to   FORMTEXT         hrs

II.	Total Expenditures of Your Company

Please estimate your company’s total expenditures in providing
services and resources since joining the Program.  You have two options
for providing this information.  Please complete Option 1 or Option 2.
(Option 1 is preferred.)

Option 1:  For each category of expenditure, please place an “X” in
the table to indicate the range of your expenditure.

Table of Expenditures

Categories of Expenditures

Expenditures for Materials/Supplies	Expenditures for Services

(e.g., vendor, air travel)

  FORMCHECKBOX   Less than $1,000	  FORMCHECKBOX   Less than $1,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $1,001-$5,000 	  FORMCHECKBOX   $1,001-$5,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $5,001-$10,000	  FORMCHECKBOX   $5,001-$10,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $10,001-$15,000	  FORMCHECKBOX   $10,001-$15,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   $15,001-$20,000	  FORMCHECKBOX   $15,001-$20,000

  FORMCHECKBOX   Greater than $20,000

(please estimate a range, e.g.,“$25,000-30,000”):

       to $  FORMTEXT          	  FORMCHECKBOX
Greater than $20,000

(please estimate a range, e.g.,“$25,000-30,000”):

     $  FORMTEXT         to $  FORMTEXT

Option 2: Please estimate the total expenditures of your company in
providing services and resources since joining the Program by placing an
“X” next to the appropriate range:

Table of Expenditures

>

D

=

>

jÓ

jì

jt

&

&

&

kd

&

&

j

&

옍

਀Ȧ䘋.옍

j

ഀ׆Ā֠㜀Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ

j

愀Ĥ

        to $  FORMTEXT

Worksheet 2: Types and Quantities of Chemicals Inventoried at Schools

Since joining the SC3 Program, what types and quantities of chemicals
has your company inventoried at schools?  Please complete the table to
answer this question to the best of your ability.  If needed, you can
use ranges (e.g., “10 to 15 gallons”) and similar methods to
simplify your responses.

Note 1:  If you already have the requested information in an electronic
format that can be provided to EPA (i.e., in Microsoft Word or Excel),
you may do so.

Note 2:  Regarding chemicals for which a chemical or trade name is not
known, please complete one row of the table for all of them and
summarize any information that is known.

Table of Chemicals Inventoried

Chemical or Trade Name of Substance Inventoried

(see material safety data sheet, if necessary)	Location of Chemical
Inventoried:

(1) Science laboratory

(2) Art classroom

(3) Vocational shop

(4) Maintenance area

(5) Other (please specify)

(6) Do not know	Age of Substance Inventoried

(if known)	Quantity or Volume of Chemicals Inventoried

(specify units, e.g., pounds, grams, etc., if known)

      	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

Worksheet 3:  Description of Training/Education

The table below is intended for you to describe your trainings in three
ways:

Identify the training/education topics addressed;

Identify the recipients of this training/education; and

Specify the frequency of this training/education.

We realize that a Partner may provide training/education to different
types of recipients at a school across a range of training topics.
Hence, the table below is designed for you to crosswalk specific
training topics (in the left margin) to the types of recipients that may
have received training/education in them (across the top margin).  The
shaded cells in the center of the table include a drop-down menu for you
to indicate the frequency at which you trained/educated a specific type
of recipient.

Please complete the table as follows:

1. 	Find the type(s) of recipient of your training/education in the top
margin; then,

2. 	Find the topic(s) that you trained/educated that recipient(s) in
(left margin); then,

3. 	Find their “shared” cell in the table (i.e., shaded cell) and
use the pull down menu in it to indicate the frequency of this
training/education.

For example, if you provide training to teachers in chemical safety each
year, you would pull down the menu in the appropriate shaded cell (i.e.,
the cell in the upper left-hand corner) of the table and select
“annually.”

Table on Training and Education

            	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

Worksheet 4: Types and Quantities of Chemicals Removed from Schools

Since joining the SC3 Program, what types of chemicals did your company
remove from schools?  Please complete the table to answer this question
to the best of your ability.  If needed, you can use ranges (e.g., “10
to 15 gallons”) and similar methods to simplify your responses.  Refer
to the following SC3 web address for guidance on completing the table:
TBD

Note:  If you already have the requested information in an electronic
format that can be provided to EPA (i.e., in Microsoft Word or Excel),
you may do so.

Table of Chemicals Removed From Schools

Classification of Chemicals Removed	Removed from:

(1) Science laboratory

(2) Art classroom

(3) Vocational shop

(4) Maintenance area

(5) Other (please specify)

(Simply enter the relevant numbers into the shaded cells below)	Quantity
or Volume of Chemicals Removed

(specify units, i.e. pounds, grams, etc., if known)

      	  FORMTEXT

Ignitables, Reactives, Explosive and Oxidizers	  FORMTEXT
      	  FORMTEXT

Corrosives	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Carcinogens and Expected Carcinogens	  FORMTEXT
FORMTEXT

Multiple Hazards	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Not Harmful	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Other	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Unknowns	  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

Worksheet 5:  Description of Outreach

The table below is intended for you to describe your outreach in three
ways:

Identify the types of outreach methods used;

Identify the recipients of this outreach; and

Specify the number of recipients of each type of outreach used.

ഀ׆Āࡰ㜀Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ

$

ഀ׆Āࡰ㜀Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ

愀Ĥ

op margin).  The shaded cells in the center of the table include a
drop-down menu for you to indicate the number of recipients that
received an outreach method.

Please complete the table as follows:

1. 	Find the type(s) of outreach methods that you used in the top
margin; then,

2. 	Find the recipient(s) of that outreach in the left margin; then,

3. 	Find their “shared” cell in the table (i.e., shaded cell) and
use the pull down menu in it to indicate the number of recipients of
that outreach.

For example, if you provided fliers to two schools, you would pull down
the menu in the appropriate shaded cell (i.e., the cell in the upper
left-hand corner) of the table and select “1 to 5”.

Table on Outreach Efforts

Schools (K-12)	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

Other companies or trade associations	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
 FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

Community centers (e.g., YMCA)	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

Universities 	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

Local governmental organizations	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

General public

      	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN
FORMDROPDOWN  	  FORMDROPDOWN

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT BURDEN STATEMENT

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to range from 45 minutes to one hour per
response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any
correspondence. Do not send the completed survey to this address.

j

 OMB Control No. 20XX-XXXX

 Approval expires XX/XX/XX

 PAGE

EPA Form No. XXXX                          **Draft May 29, 2008: Page
PAGE  ii **

EPA Form No. XXXX                          **Draft May 29, 2008: Page
PAGE  18 **


[Federal Register: June 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 32374]
[DOCID:fr05jn06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH); Notice of Re-Establishment

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of re-establishment of MACOSH.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2), and after
consultation with the General Services Administration (GSA), the
Secretary of Labor has determined that the re-establishment of the
Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH)
is in the public interest. The Committee will better enable OSHA to
perform the duties imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (OSH Act), 84 Stat. 1590, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) Authority to
establish this Committee is found in sections 6(b) and 7(b) of the OSH
Act; Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
(33 U.S.C. 941), and other general agency authority in Title 5 of the
United States Code, and 29 CFR part 1912.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Maddux, Director, Office of
Maritime within the Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Committee will advise OSHA on matters relevant to the safety
and health of workers in the maritime industry. This includes advice on
maritime issues that will result in more effective enforcement,
training, and outreach programs, and streamlined regulatory efforts.
The maritime industry includes employers in the shipbuilding, ship
repair, shipbreaking, longshoring, and marine terminal industries.
    The committee will function solely as an advisory body and in
compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
and OSHA's regulations covering advisory committees (29 CFR part 1912).
The Committee charter will be filed 15 days from the date of this
publication.

II. Authority

    Sections 6(b) and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), other general agency
authority in Title 5 of the United States Code, and 29 CFR part 1912.

Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E6-8656 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25402-25404]
[DOCID:fr28my09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0453; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-63-AD;
Amendment 39-15911; AD 2009-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model
MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2, and C-1 Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the specified ECD model helicopters that currently requires initial
and repetitive inspections of the main rotor blade (blade) upper and
lower surfaces for bulging. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Community, based on reported incidents in which a balance
weight migrated toward the tip of the blade. The MCAI states that new
blades have become available that are not fitted with lead balance
weights. The MCAI states that only blades equipped with a lead balance
weight may result in the unsafe condition. This AD retains the
requirements of the current AD but limits the applicability to those
part-numbered blades that are fitted with lead balance weights. The
actions are intended to limit the applicability to those blades fitted
with lead balance weights that could detach, migrate, and cause severe
vibrations leading to blade failure and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on June 12, 2009.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://
www.eurocopter.com.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations
office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is stated in the
ADDRESSES section of this AD. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA AD 2008-0156, dated August 19,
2008, to supersede Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) Germany AD D-1994-280R3
(EASA approval 2005-6229) issued on September 19, 2005. Since the LBA
AD was issued, new blades have become available that do not have lead
balance weights. The LBA AD was issued following reports of two flight
incidents involving balance weights detaching from the blade structure
and migrating toward the tip of the blade causing severe vibrations.
The centrifugal force on the blades can bring about creep deformation
of the lead balance weight resulting in bulging of the blade skin. The
height of such bulges is the criteria for assessing the extent of
possible damage to the structure around the lead balance weight and the
possibility of blade failure. The EASA AD states, ``only MR blades
equipped with a lead balance weight are affected by this unsafe
condition.'' The EASA AD also states that current requirements are
retained but limits the applicability to those part-numbered blades
that are fitted with lead balance weights. The actions are intended to
limit the applicability to those blades with lead balance weights that
could detach, migrate, and cause severe vibrations leading to blade
failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and any
related service information in the AD docket.

Related Service Information

    ECD has issued Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117-10-108, Revision 3,
dated August 7, 2008 (ASB). This ASB limits the applicability to
certain part-numbered blades with a lead balance weight. This ASB
replaces Revision 2. Revision 3 of the ASB states that if one of the
previous revisions has been done, no further work is required due to
Revision 3. The ASB notes that ``the inspection interval was
incorporated in the MBB-BK117 Maintenance Manual (MM) with Revision No.
24 (for MBB-BK117 A-1 through B-2) and with Revision No. 5 (for MBB-
BK117 C-1).'' The ASB also notes that ``provided that the first
inspection has been accomplished during 5 flight hours and upon
availability of these changes in the MM, the ASB-MBB-BK117-10-108 will
no longer be effective.'' The ASB further states that if one of the
editions of this ASB before Revision 3 has been done, you should
inspect the blades for bulging by following the MM and at the

intervals stated in the MM with the first inspection for bulging to be
done after 1,800 flight hours time since new. The actions described in
the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that
identified in the service information.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    These ECD model helicopters have been approved by the aviation
authority of the Federal Republic of Germany and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the Federal Republic of Germany, their Technical Agent has
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are
issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA
and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other ECD model helicopters of these same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    We refer to flight hours as hours time-in-service. We retained the
compliance time from the current AD and the Eurocopter ASB, dated
August 18, 1994, and did not include the option of accumulating 1,800
flight hours since the first flight as stated in the MCAI. We do not
incorporate ASB, Revision 3, damage inspection. We do not require that
you contact ECD for instructions for corrective action. This AD
requires that you contact the FAA for an Alternate Method of
Compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 30 helicopters of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about \l/2\ work-hour per
helicopter to inspect each blade. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts will cost about $87,000 per blade. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators will
be $102,600, assuming 1 initial and 12 recurring inspections of the
blade during the first year and 1 blade replacement.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. We find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving
notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the initial
inspection time is within 5 hours TIS. There is a significant
unjustified burden on operators who have replaced their blades with
redesigned part numbered blades because the inspection need not apply
to those blades. Therefore, we have determined that notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable
and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer
than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send us any written data, views, or
arguments concerning this AD. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section of this AD. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-
0453; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-63-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on product(s) identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    Therefore, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-9399 (60 FR
53507, October 16, 1995) and by adding the following new AD:

2009-11-01 Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-15911. Docket
No. FAA-2009-0453; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-63-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on June
12, 2009

Other Affected ADs

    (b) Supersedes AD 95-21-12, Amendment No. 39-9399, Docket Number
94-SW-19-AD (60 FR 53507, October 16, 1995).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, A-3, A-4, B-1, B-2,
and C-1 helicopters, certificated in any category, with the
following main rotor blade (blade) installed:

                         Blade Part Number (P/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
117-15001
117-150021
117-150061
117-151321
117-151341, 117-151341V001
117-151351, 117-151351V001
117-151361, 117-151361V001
117-151421V001
117-151441, 117-151441V001

117-151441V002, 117-151441V003
117-151451, 117-151451V001
117-151451V002, 117-151451V003
117-151461, 117-151461V001
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason

    (d) Redesigned blades have become available that are not fitted
with lead balance weights. Only a blade equipped with a lead balance
weight may contain the unsafe condition. This AD retains the
requirements of the current AD but limits the applicability to those
part-numbered blades that are fitted with lead balance weights. The
actions are intended to detect the blades fitted with lead balance
weights that could move and cause severe vibrations leading to blade
failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Required as indicated:
    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless already done,
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, visually
inspect the upper and lower surfaces of each affected main rotor
blade (blade) in the area of the outboard lead balance weight in the
marked inspection area for bulging.
    (i) If a marked inspection area is not visible, mark the area
using a water-resistant and indelible marking pencil and then
inspect the upper and lower surfaces of each blade in the area of
the outboard lead balance weight for bulging.

    Note: For guidance, the current MBB-BK117 Maintenance Manual at
Figure 14-5A contains the dimensions and placement of the inspection
area.

    (ii) If bulging exceeds 1 millimeter (mm) (0.040 inch) in
height, before further flight, remove the blade and replace it with
an airworthy blade that is not listed in the applicability of this
AD.
    (2) Replacing the affected blade with an airworthy blade that is
not listed in the applicability of this AD is terminating action for
the requirements of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) We refer to flight hours as hours TIS. We retained the
compliance time from the current AD and the Eurocopter ASB, dated
August 18, 1994, and did not include the option of accumulating
1,800 flight hours since the first flight as stated in the MCAI. We
do not incorporate ASB, Revision 3, damage inspection. We do not
require that you contact ECD for instructions for corrective action.
This AD requires that you contact the FAA for an Alternate Method of
Compliance.

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817)
222-5961, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2008-0156,
dated August 19, 2008, and Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB-
BK117 No. ASB-MBB-BK117-10-108, Revision 3, dated August 7, 2008,
contains related information.

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Tracking Code

    (i) ATA Code No. 6210 Main Rotor Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 7, 2009.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-12320 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23534-23536]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9409]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66810; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31(h)(4) To Make Passive Liquidity Orders in Exchange-
Listed Securities Available to All Users, Regardless of Whether a Lead
Market Maker Is Assigned to the Security

April 13, 2012.
    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 April 3, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(4)
to make Passive Liquidity Orders (``PL Orders'') in Exchange-listed
securities available to all Users, regardless of whether a Lead Market
Maker (``LMM'') is assigned to the security. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, www.nyse.com, and 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(4)
to make PL Orders in Exchange-listed securities available to all Users,
regardless of whether an LMM is assigned to the security.
    A PL Order is an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security
at a specified, undisplayed price.\4\ In securities where the NYSE Arca
Marketplace is the primary listings market and there is an LMM assigned
to the security that complies with certain display requirements, a PL
Order is currently available only to the LMM for such security. In all
other securities traded on the Exchange, whether dually-listed
securities or securities traded pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges, a PL Order is available to all Users. The Exchange proposes
to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(4) to remove the text therein
that limits the use of PL Orders in Exchange-listed securities to the
assigned LMM, thereby making PL Orders available to all Users,
regardless of whether an LMM is assigned to the security.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(h)(4).
    \5\ The Exchange also proposes to remove certain text from NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 7.37(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) that would be rendered
obsolete by the proposed amendment to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PL Order was initially designed to attract liquidity to the
Exchange by permitting market participants to express their trading
interest more accurately than was possible with other order types
available at the time.\6\ PL Orders were also designed to offer
potential price improvement to incoming marketable orders submitted by
any User.\7\ The Exchange originally believed that restricting the use
of the PL Order in Exchange-listed securities to LMMs was appropriate
because LMMs would be subject to certain minimum display requirements
in proximity to the Exchange's Best Bid and Offer (``BBO'').\8\ The
Exchange believed that these requirements could enhance depth and
liquidity at or near the Exchange's BBO.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54511 (September 26,
2006), 71 FR 58460, 58461 (October 3, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-53).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. at 58462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After significant experience with the use of PL Orders on the
Exchange, both by LMMs and other Users, the Exchange believes that PL
Orders in Exchange-listed securities should be available to all Users,
regardless of whether an LMM is assigned to the security. In this
regard, experience has shown that LMMs in Exchange-listed securities
generally do not utilize PL Orders in their assigned securities. In
contrast, the Exchange has recently received requests from ETP Holders
to permit PL Orders in Exchange-listed securities to be entered by
Users other than the LMM assigned to the security.
    The proposed rule change would enhance the tools available to Users
when entering their trading interest by making PL Orders in Exchange-
listed securities available to all Users, including LMMs. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not disadvantage LMMs,
which generally do not utilize the PL Order type, but would remain able
to do so going forward, albeit without the exclusivity that is
currently available. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the
elimination of this exclusivity, and the display requirements related
thereto, would not have a detrimental impact on the quality of the
Exchange's market, because, as discussed above, LMMs generally do not
utilize the PL Order. Instead, the proposed rule change could improve
the quality of the Exchange's market by increasing the potential for
price improvement on the Exchange in Exchange-listed securities.
    Because of the related technology changes that this proposed rule
change would require, the Exchange proposes to announce the initial
implementation date via Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\11\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change meets these requirements because
it would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove
impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market by expanding the
universe of Users that could submit PL Orders in Exchange-listed
securities. The Exchange further believes that by expanding access to
PL Orders in Exchange-listed securities to all Users, the Exchange will
further promote just and equitable principles of trade. Conversely, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not disadvantage
LMMs, which generally do not utilize the PL Order type, because they
would remain able to use PL Orders in Exchange-listed securities.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the elimination of this
exclusivity would further the goals of a free and open market and
national market system by increasing the potential for price
improvement in Exchange-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2012-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-30. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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
a.m. and 3 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-30 and
should be submitted on or before May 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9409 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


FACT SHEET

Summary of the Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision

for

Acid Copper Chromate (ACC)

Action

	On May 30, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, or the
Agency) approved a new ACC wood preservative product in response to a
registration application submitted by Forest Products Research
Laboratory (FPRL).  This is one of several ACC registration applications
that have been submitted to the Agency.  At the time of this approval,
Osmose, Inc. was the only company with a current registration for ACC
but had not produced or sold the product in the United States for many
years.

	In January 2004, EPA sent letters to the applicants clarifying that the
existing data were not sufficient to support a favorable regulatory
decision.  The letter identified the additional studies that would be
needed to enable the Agency to fully assess whether or not the increase
in exposure resulting from a new ACC registration would lead to a
“significant” increase in the likelihood of unreasonable adverse
effects.

	In response to the Agency’s January 2004 letter, Osmose submitted a
wipe study and FPRL submitted a worker inhalation study.  With these two
studies the database is sufficient to assess the risks associated with
occupational and residential exposures expected from the use of ACC.

Risk Assessment Summary

	The risk assessment conducted by the Agency focused on the potential
exposures to the most toxic constituent of ACC-treated wood, hexavalent
chromium.  Hexavalent chromium converts over time to a less toxic
substance, trivalent chromium.  Therefore, the amount of time between
treatment and exposure affects the risk estimates.  The Agency
identified both cancer and non-cancer toxicological effects for use in
the assessment.  Hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen when
exposure occurs via the inhalation route.  Based on this exposure
pathway, cancer risk estimates were developed for workers in treatment
plants and other occupational groups that could be expected to be
exposed to hexavalent chromium in the air.  Residents are not expected
to be exposed via this pathway.

	Residents and workers may, however, be exposed to hexavalent chromium
by making dermal contact with treated wood surfaces.  The toxicological
effect of concern for the dermal exposure is dermal sensitization.

	In 2004, the Agency sought technical guidance from the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) on quantifying risks when the toxicological effect
of concern is dermal sensitization.  Hexavalent chromium was used as a
case study.  In its final report, the SAP recommended using the
methodology and results from the Nethercott et al. study to quantify
dermal sensitization risk from exposure to hexavalent chromium.  The
Agency followed the SAP’s recommendation for use of the critical dose
identified in the Nethercott et al. study but did not use uncertainty
factors of less than 1 for deriving the total uncertainty factor applied
to the critical dose identified in the Nethercott et al. study.  The
Nethercott et al. study was subsequently reviewed by the Human Studies
Review Board on May 2, 2006, and determined to be appropriate for risk
assessment.

	The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is currently conducting a study
to determine whether hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen via the oral
route of exposure.  Preliminary results may not be available until 2007.
 The Agency intends to review these data when they become available.

Residential Exposure and Risk

	Based on the Agency’s risk assessment, residential risks are of
concern for ACC.  The estimated levels of hexavalent chromium present on
treated wood exceeded the Agency’s level of concern for dermal
exposure from 36 to 197 days after treatment.  The range of risks
reflects different retention levels (0.25 pcf for above ground
applications and 0.5 pcf for ground contact applications) and wood types
(southern yellow pine and Douglas fir).  EPA anticipates that the most
common retention/wood type combination for residential use patterns
would be 0.5 pcf retention in southern yellow pine.  Under this scenario
hexavalent chromium levels exceed the Agency’s level of concern for
100 days after treatment.

	Incidental oral exposures are not expected to pose risks above the
Agency’s level of concern.  Inhalation exposure to hexavalent chromium
is not expected to occur in the residential setting, so a residential
cancer assessment was not conducted.

Occupational Exposure and Risk

	Occupational cancer and non-cancer risks are of concern for most
scenarios.  Risk estimates were calculated for general use and
industrial uses only, because non-cancer residential risks were already
found to be of concern.  The amount of wood typically treated in a day
is significantly higher when wood to be used in residential applications
is included.

	Risks for ACC industrial uses are very similar (slightly less risky) to
those for chromated copper arsenate (CCA) industrial uses, which is the
predominant treatment alternative currently in use.  The CCA risks are
driven primarily by the arsenic in the wood preservative.  CCA is not
registered for treatment of wood for residential uses.

Regulatory Decision

The Agency has completed its review of an application to register ACC
for use in treating wood intended for industrial and residential
applications.  Following an extensive review of the scientific
information, EPA approved the limited use of ACC for treated wood used
only in commercial and industrial applications.  These limited
applications are not expected to result in significant exposures to the
general public. The potential risks to workers in treatment plants are
similar to those found for workers in plants using the registered wood
preservative, CCA.  Thus, labels will provide for the use of personal
protective equipment in order to mitigate risks.

For residential uses (decks, playsets, etc.), EPA has found that surface
residues of hexavalent chromium can persist and potentially elicit
dermal sensitization up to 100 days following treatment.  Based on
existing information, the Agency does not believe that it is feasible to
mitigate this risk adequately through label restrictions, given the
rapid turnover of treated wood in the marketplace (often much less than
30 days during peak use times) and difficulties in establishing an
enforceable method for ensuring that wood would not be available to
consumers during the time required for hexavalent chromium to convert to
the less-toxic trivalent chromium.

ACC products may only be used for preservative treatment of the
following categories of forest products and in accordance with the
respective cited standard (noted  parenthetically) of the 2001 edition
of the American Wood-Preservers’ Association (AWPA) Standards:

Timber for mine ties and bridge ties only (C2)

Lumber and timber for salt water use only (C2)

Piles (C3)

Poles (C4)

Wood for highway construction (C14)

Round, half-round, and quarter-round fence posts (C16)

Poles, piles, and posts used as structural members on farms (C16)

Wood for marine construction for salt water use (C18)

Lumber for permanent wood foundations (C22)

Round poles and posts used in building construction (C23)

Sawn timber to support residential and commercial structures (C24)

Sawn cross arms (C25)

Structural glued laminated members and laminations before gluing (C28)

Structural composite lumber (C33)

Shakes and shingles (C34)

Lumber and timbers for Cooling Towers (C30) in accordance with the
respective cited standard of the 2002 edition of the AWPA Standards

To minimize occupational exposures, the Agency is requiring use of
certain personal protective equipment (PPE).  Specifically, dermal
exposure to workers will be mitigated by the use of coveralls, socks,
chemical-resistant footwear, goggles or face shields, and
chemical-resistant gloves and aprons. Inhalation exposure to workers
will be mitigated by requiring the use of respirators for workers in
areas where the concentration of hexavalent chromium exceeds the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Limit
or in areas where the concentrations are not known.  Additionally,
ACC-treated wood will bear Consumer Information Tags or “end-tags.”
These required end-tags will include specific precautionary statements
for carpenters and others who may come into contact with ACC-treated
wood products.

In response to the risk assessment, Osmose voluntarily submitted an
amendment to its ACC label deleting residential uses.  The FIFRA 6(f)
notice deleting all residential uses from the Osmose label was published
on July 18, 2006, in the Federal Register.  The comment period on this
action closed on August 17, 2006, and all residential uses were removed
from the Osmose label on August 18, 2006.  As a result, ACC may not be
used to treat wood intended for use in residential settings, such as
decking and playsets, where significant exposures are likely to occur.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1