[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24191-24192]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-111-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on April 4, 2012, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (CEGT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas
77002-5231, filed in Docket No. CP12-111-000 an application pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, to abandon and
remove the Tate Island compressor station in Johnson County, Arkansas,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact
FERCOnline Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    CEGT proposes to abandon the Tate Island compressor station, which
is located on CEGT's Line B in Johnson County. CEGT would remove two
rented 400 horsepower (HP) Caterpillar G3412 reciprocating compressor
units and associated auxiliary facilities. CEGT states that natural gas
currently flows through Line B and is compressed at the Tate Island
compressor station before flowing via Line B for further compression at
CEGT's Piney compressor station in Pope County, Arkansas, for delivery
into CEGT's Line J. CEGT also states that it has determined that it
would be more cost effective to abandon the Tate Island compressor
station and use the Piney compressor station for the necessary
compression. CEGT further states that this rearrangement of compression
facilities would create savings on monthly rental costs and not degrade
service on CEGT's system. CEGT

estimates that it would cost $401,810 to abandon the Tate Island
facilities.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michele Willis, Manager, Regulatory & Compliance, CenterPoint Energy
Gas Transmission Company, LLC, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana
71151, or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 4, 2012.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9652 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


4468 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2003 / Notices operators of small MWCs are required to measure, record, and report emission rates and operating parameters, follow good combustion practices. The responses to this Emission Guideline is mandatory. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 404 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Small Municipal Waste Combustors. Estimated Number of Respondents: 39. Frequency of Response: Initial, Quarterly, Semi annual, Annual. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 186,374 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 17,351,247, includes $ 3,337,600 annualized capital and O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 185,077 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the conducting of initial performance tests, annual performance tests, and the installation of continuous emission monitoring systems and their operation and maintenance.

Dated: January 15, 2003. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   2037 Filed 1   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0049; FRL   7280   6 Rodenticides; Availability of Preliminary Comparative Ecological Assessment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for nine rodenticides, which included those addressed in the Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) for the the rodenticide cluster ( brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin, chlorophacinone, diphacinone,) and zinc phosphide, as well as three other rodenticides, warfarin, difethialone, and cholecalciferol. This notice also starts a 60   day public comment period for the preliminary comparative ecological risk assessment. Comments are to be limited to issues directly associated with the nine rodenticides that are included in the risk assessment which has been placed in the docket and should be limited to issues raised in the document. By allowing access and opportunity for comment on the preliminary ecological assessment, EPA is seeking to strengthen stakeholder involvement and help ensure our decisions are transparent and based on the best available information. The Agency cautions that this assessment is a preliminary assessment only and that further refinements of the assessment may be appropriate for the nine rodenticides. This document reflects only the work and analysis conducted as of the time it was produced and it is appropriate that, as new information becomes available and/ or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions it contains may change. DATES: Comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP   2002   0049, must be received on or before March 31, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8195; e mail address: pates. john@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0049. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. In addition, copies of the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for the nine rodenticides may also be accessed at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ rodenticidecluster. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 18: 08 Jan 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29JAN1. SGM 29JAN1 4469 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2003 / Notices Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA' s electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0049. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. e mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0049. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0049. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0049. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1. D. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 18: 08 Jan 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29JAN1. SGM 29JAN1 4470 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2003 / Notices please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is making available the preliminary comparative ecological assessment for nine rodenticides, which included those addressed in the Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) for the the rodenticide cluster ( brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin, chlorophacinone, diphacinone,) and zinc phosphide, as well as three other rodenticides, warfarin, difethialone, and cholecalciferol. This notice starts a 60   day public comment period for the preliminary comparative ecological assessment. The Agency's preliminary assessment titled: `` Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach,'' is available in the docket. As additional comments, reviews, and risk assessment modifications become available, these will also be docketed for the nine rodenticides listed in this notice. The Agency cautions that these assessments are preliminary assessments only and that further refinements will be appropriate for some, if not all, of these nine rodenticides. This document reflects only the work and analysis conducted as of the time it was produced and it is appropriate that, as new information becomes available and/ or additional analyses are performed, the conclusions contained, therein, may change. The Agency is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide written comments and input to the Agency on the preliminary ecological assessment for the chemicals specified in this notice. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the assessment or address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to these specific chemicals. Comments should be limited to issues raised within the preliminary assessment. Failure to comment on any such issues as part of this opportunity will in no way prejudice or limit a commenter's opportunity to participate fully in later notice and comment processes. All comments should be submitted by February 28, 2003 using the methods in Unit I. Comments will become part of the Agency record for each rodenticide to which it pertains.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: January 18, 2003. Lois A. Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   2021 Filed 1   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0318; FRL   7281   3]

S metolachlor; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0318, must be received on or before February 28, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: 703   305   6224; e mail address: miller. joanne@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   ( NAICS 111), e. g., Crop Production   ( NAICS 112), e. g., Animal Production   ( NAICS 311), e. g., Food Manufacturing   ( NAICS 32532), e. g., Pesticide Manufacturing   ( NAICS 32561), e. g., Antimicrobial Pesticide This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in this Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity , consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0138. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m.,

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 18: 08 Jan 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29JAN1. SGM 29JAN1


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION III
	1650 Arch Street
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:            June 13, 2012

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Maryland State Implementation Plan Revision for the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing
		/s/
FROM:	Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, Environmental Engineer
            Office of Air Program Planning

TO:	File
		/s/
THRU: 	Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director
            Office of Air Program Planning

A.  INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on a submittal made by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on May 8, 2012.  The SIP revision amends Maryland's COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> "Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing" to establish new volatile organic compounds (VOC) content limits for coating and cleaning solvents used in vehicle refinishing and standards for coating application, work practices, monitoring, and recordkeeping.

B.  BACKGROUND

Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.  In order to reduce ground-level ozone levels, emissions of VOC and NOX must be reduced.  Maryland was  designated nonattainment with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in November 15, 1990, with several serious nonattainment areas, including: the Baltimore, Maryland area, the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area, and the Maryland portion of the Washington, DC area.  Additionally, the entire State of Maryland corresponds to the ozone transport region (OTR), under section 184(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  As a result, the entire state is subject to the ozone nonattainment plan provisions of section 182 and the federal ozone measures of section 183 of the CAA.

Section 182(c) of the CAA requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above to submit a SIP revision that provides VOC emissions reductions of at least 15 percent from the baseline emissions of 1990.  In Maryland, the 15 percent plans (the 15% rate-of-progress plans) were required for the 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.  Pursuant to this requirement, Maryland revised its SIP on August 4, 1997 to adopt COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> "Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing."  The regulation would achieve fully enforceable VOC emissions reductions from vehicle refinishing sources through the State of Maryland, which were creditable towards the 15% rate-of-progress plans.  The rule, which followed EPA's "Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) Document: Automobile Body Refinishing" (EPA-453/R-94-031, April 1994), established standards for vehicle refinishing based on VOC content of coatings, methods for calculating the VOC content of a coating system, and standards for operating, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.  The coating categories included: pretreatment coatings, precoatings, primer surfacers, primer sealers, topcoats, multi-stage coating systems, and specialty coatings.

Section 183(e) of the CAA requires EPA to study and report to U.S. Congress on VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products and their potential to contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS.  In addition, section 183(e) requires EPA to list those categories of consumer and commercial products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, in ozone nonattainment areas and establish priorities for their regulation.  EPA submitted the Report to Congress on March 15, 1995 ("Consumer and Commercial Products Report to Congress,'' EPA-453/R-94-066-A), and on this same date established the priority list for future regulation of consumer and commercial products (published on March 23, 1995, at 56 FR 15264).  Automobile refinish coatings were to be regulated by March 1997.  A final rule entitled "National Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings" (EPA's National Rule) was published by EPA on September 11, 1998 under the authority of section 183(e) of the CAA (63 FR 48806), as identified in 40 CFR Part 59, subpart B.  The federal rule applies to all automobile refinish coatings that are manufactured or imported for sale or distribution in the United States, and sets VOC content limits by automotive refinish category.  See EPA's August 1998 report "Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing - Background Information for Promulgated Standards" (EPA-453/R-96-011b).

On January 9, 2008, EPA published the final rule 40 CFR part 63 subpart HHHHHH "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources" (EPA's 6H NESHAP), which includes automobile refinishing.  This federal rule specifically applies to area sources that engage in paint stripping operations that use methylene chloride (MeCl) containing paint stripping formulations, and in spray application of coatings to motor vehicle and mobile equipment, plastic and or metal substrate, where the coatings contain compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, or cadmium.  Motor vehicle or mobile equipment surface coating operations may petition the EPA's Administrator for an exemption from this rule if the owner or operator can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the EPA's Administrator, that the spray applied does not include coatings containing any of these compounds.  This rule establishes important requirements for these types of facilities, among the following: training certification of all new and existing personnel who spray surface coatings, minimum training requirements, and installation to all facilities of a filtered spray booth and enclosed spray gun cleaner.

Maryland's 1997 SIP-approved COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> "Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing" complies with the federal standards established in EPA's rules.  No changes were made to Maryland's COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> until the 2011 amendments, which Maryland adopted in its regulations on March 26, 2012.  EPA is proposing to approve these amendments into the Maryland SIP through this action.  The proposed SIP revision is based on the 2009 "Model Rule for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations" (MVMERR) developed in conjunction with member states of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC).  The MVMERR established requirements which comply with those established in EPA's National Rule and 6H NESHAP.  The proposed SIP revision will replace the standards and requirements in the current SIP-approved regulation with new standards and requirements, including VOC content limits in automotive coatings and cleaning solvents, controls on emissions from equipment cleaning, the use of coating application methods, recordkeeping, maintenance activities, and operator training.

Source Description

Automobile refinishing includes the application of coatings following the manufacture of original equipment.  "Automobile" or "vehicle" in this category refers to passenger cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, and other mobile equipment capable of being driven on the highway.  Automobile refinishing work typically consists of structural repair, surface preparation, and painting, and includes operations in auto body repair/paint shops, production auto body paint shops, new car dealer repair/paint shops, fleet operator repair/paint shops, and custom made car fabrication facilities.  The steps involved in automobile refinishing include surface preparation, coating applications, and spray equipment.  VOC emissions result from the evaporation of solvents during each of these processes, and can be controlled through the use of compliant coatings and solvents, the use of application equipment with increased transfer efficiency, and stringent work practice standards.

The main categories of coatings are primers and topcoats.  The primer category consists of pretreatment wash primers, primers, primer surfacers, and primer sealer.  Topcoats are applied over the primer coats and provide the final color to the refinished area.   Primers and coatings can be classified as lacquer, enamel, or urethane coatings.  Each coating differs in its chemistry durability, and VOC content.  Some additives and specialty coatings are necessary for unusual performance requirements, and are used in relatively small amounts to improve desirable properties.  Additives and special coatings include adhesion promoters, uniform refinish blenders, elastomeric materials for flexible plastic parts, gloss flatteners, and anti-glare/safety coatings.  For additional information, see EPA's "Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) Document: Automobile Body Refinishing" (EPA-453/R-94-031, April 1994).

C.  STATE'S SUBMITTAL

Summary of SIP Revision

The proposed SIP revision establishes VOC content limits for automotive coatings and cleaning solvents used in the preparation, application, and drying phases of vehicle refinishing.  The revision also establishes coating application standards, work practices, operator training standards, and compliance and recordkeeping standards.  These standards and emissions limits for control of VOC as established under Maryland's COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> are to be effective for all affected sources as of July 1, 2013.  Affected sources include: auto body and repair facilities, fleet operator repair and paint facilities, new and used auto dealer repair and paint facilities, and after-market auto customizing and detailing facilities located throughout the State of Maryland; manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of coatings and cleaning solvents intended for use and application to motor vehicles, mobile equipment, and associated components within the State of Maryland; and manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of application equipment and materials storage such as spray booths, spray guns, and sealed containers for cleaning rags for use within the State.

The new regulation revises or adds new terms under its definitions.  For instance, the definition of "mobile equipment" has being extended to include "automobile," "truck cabs," "truck bodies," "buses," "motorcycles," "implements of husbandry or agriculture," and "trains and railcars."  In addition to the use of automotive coatings or cleaning solvents, the applicability requirements have been extended to include any person who supplies, sell, offers for sale, distributes, and manufactures automotive coatings or cleaning solvents within the State of Maryland.  Specific exemptions were incorporated into the  regulation to exclude coatings and cleaning solvents for sale outside the State, assembly line coatings, aerosol coatings, coatings used in surface coating processes under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>  "Automotive and Light-Duty Truck Coating" and coatings sold in 0.5 fluid ounces or less.

The revision establishes specific VOC content limits, which exclude water and exempt compounds, for automotive coatings and cleaning solvents.  As defined in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(53), exempt VOC compounds are those which have been determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity by EPA and which are listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s), as amended.  The limits are established in both pounds per gallon (lbs/gal) and grams per liter (g/L) for each of the 11 coating categories and two solvent categories.  Several categories for coatings were added as part of this revision,  including: adhesion promoter, clear coating, color coating, multicolor coating, single-stage coating, temporary coating, truck bed liner coating, and underbody coating.  The VOC content limits for the automotive coatings and solvents established in section E of the regulation are provided in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

Table 1: VOC Content Limits for Automotive Coatings for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing and Recoating VOC Content Limit for Automotive Coatings
                               Coating Category
                              Maximum VOC Content

                                    lbs/gal
                                      g/L
Adhesion promoter
                                      4.5
                                      540
Automotive pretreatment coating
                                      5.5
                                      660
Automotive primer
                                      2.1
                                      250
Clear coating
                                      2.1
                                      250
Color coating, including metallic/iridescent color coating
                                      3.5
                                      420
Multicolor coating
                                      5.7
                                      680
Other automotive coating type
                                      2.1
                                      250
Single-stage coating, including single-stage metallic/iridescent coating
                                      2.8
                                      340
Temporary protective coating
                                      0.5
                                      60
Truck bed liner coating
                                      1.7
                                      200
Underbody coating
                                      3.6
                                      430

Table 2: VOC Content Limits for Cleaning Solvents for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing and Recoating VOC Content Limit for Cleaning Solvents
                               Solvent Category
                              Maximum VOC Content
Cleaning solvent (other than bug and tar removers)
                                 0.21 lbs/gal
                                    25 g/L
Bug and tar removers**
40% VOC by weight

For determining compliance of the VOC content limits of each automotive coating, the VOC content should be determined using the following equations:
      VOC regulatory content = (Wv - Ww - Wec) / (Vm - Vw - Vec);
      VOC actual content = (Wv - Ww - Wec) / (Vm).

The VOC content for cleaning solvents, other than for bug and tar removal, must be determined using the following equation:
      VOC content = (Wv - Ww - Wec) / (Vm)
      Where:
      VOC content (or actual) = grams of VOC per liter of coating;
      Wv = weight of total volatiles, in grams;
      Ww = weight of water, in grams;
      Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in grams;
            Vm = volume of material (coating or cleaning solvent, including water, exempt compounds, and added solvent) in liters;
      Vw = volume of water, in liters; and
      Vec = volume of exempt compounds, in liters.

A list of test methods to be used for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with provisions of this regulation is provided in section B of the rule.  Instead of complying with the VOC content limits specified in Tables 1 and 2 (section E of the regulation), a person subject to this regulation may use an emission control device that has been approved by MDE, which achieves an overall emission control efficiency of 85 percent or greater, as determined in accordance with EPA's Technical Document, "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency" (January 1995), EPA Methods 204 through 204F as described in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, and EPA Reference Methods 25, 25A, and 25 C.  The approved emission control device must be maintained and used at all times in proper working condition.

All affected facilities must use at least one of following methods when applying an automotive coating: flow or curtain coating, dip coating, brush coating, cotton-tipped swab application, electrodeposition coating, high volume-low pressure (HVLP) spraying, electrostatic spraying, airless spraying, or an alternate spray equipment method approved by MDE.  An alternate spraying method should achieve a transfer efficiency equivalent or higher than HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods, using the methods described under the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Test Procedure, "Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User" (May 1989) and SCAQMD Guidelines, "Guidelines for Demonstrating Equivalency with District Approved Transfer Efficiency Spray Guns" (September 2002), and based on the regulation specifications.  The terms "electrostatic spraying" and "airless spraying" are defined in the regulation to be used in this context.

Work practice standards include procedures for cleaning the spray gun equipment for applying automotive coatings.  These procedures should be part of any training program implemented by the owners and operators of affected facilities.  Affected facilities are also required to keep extensive records on the total amount of coating used, VOC actual and regulatory contents, purchase records, etc.  Facilities using an emission control device must maintain a daily record of system operating parameters such as temperature, pressure drops, and air flow rates to demonstrate compliance.

Emissions Reductions

The use and implementation of compliant low-VOC automotive coatings and cleaning solvents coupled with stringent application and work practice standards is expected to reduce VOC emissions from vehicle refinishing operations in the State of Maryland through the use of coatings with less toxic compounds.  Based upon calculations and emissions estimates by the MDE, the SIP revision should provide a statewide VOC emissions reduction potential of 65 percent from the vehicle refinishing category of the current baseline emissions inventory.  Maryland's 2002 baseline emissions inventory indicates that VOC emissions from vehicle refinishing total 3.7 tons per day.  This regulation is expected to reduce 2.4 tons per day of VOC emissions through implementation of the coating limits and standards established.

D.  EPA'S EVALUATION

Maryland has adopted most inclusive requirements as VOC content limits and standards in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> "Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing," which should continue to help reduce VOC emissions from the automobile refinishing facilities throughout the State of Maryland.  The regulation includes the applicability, emissions limits, working standards, requirements for container labeling, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping recommended by the OTC model rule.

E.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

The Maryland SIP revision for the control of VOC emissions from vehicle refinishing under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, as adopted by the State of Maryland on March 26, 2012, meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and the applicable EPA regulations.  The SIP revision will help achieve VOC emissions reductions throughout the State of Maryland.  EPA recommends approval of this SIP revision through rulemaking.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56658-56660]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2474]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Reporting Associated With Designated New Animal Drugs
for Minor Use and Minor Species

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the reporting associated with
designation under the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of
2004.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by October 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the

public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and
``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-N-2474 for ``Reporting Associated with Designated New Animal
Drugs for Minor Use and Minor Species.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Reporting Associated With Designated New Animal Drugs for Minor Use and
Minor Species; 21 CFR Part 516 OMB Control Number 0910-0605--Extension

    The Minor Use and Minor Species (MUMS) Animal Health Act of 2004
(Pub. L. 108-282) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) to authorize FDA to establish new regulatory procedures
intended to make more medications legally available to veterinarians
and animal owners for the treatment of minor animal species as well as
uncommon diseases in major animal species. This legislation provides
incentives designed to help pharmaceutical companies overcome the
financial burdens they face in providing limited-demand animal drugs.
These incentives are only available to sponsors whose drugs are ``MUMS-
designated'' by FDA. Minor use drugs are drugs for use in major species
(cattle, horses, swine, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats) that are
needed for diseases that occur in only a small number of animals either
because they occur infrequently or in limited geographic areas. Minor
species are all animals other than the major species; for example, zoo
animals, ornamental fish, parrots, ferrets, and guinea pigs. Some
animals of agricultural importance are also minor species. These
include animals such as sheep, goats, catfish, and honeybees.
Participation in the MUMS program is completely optional for drug
sponsors so the associated reporting only applies to those sponsors who
request and are subsequently granted ``MUMS designation.''
    Our regulations in 21 CFR part 516 specify the criteria and
procedures for requesting MUMS designation as well as the annual
reporting requirements for MUMS designees. Section 516.20 provides
requirements on the content and format of a request for MUMS-drug
designation; Sec.  516.26 provides requirements for amending MUMS-drug
designation; Sec.  516.27 provides for change in sponsorship of MUMS-
drug designation; Sec.  516.29 provides for termination of MUMS-drug
designation; Sec.  516.30 contains the requirements for annual reports
from sponsor(s) of MUMS-designated drugs; and Sec.  516.36 sets forth
consequences for insufficient quantities of MUMS-designated drugs.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information
collection are pharmaceutical companies that sponsor new animal drugs.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
         21 CFR section              Number of    responses  per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents      respondent      responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
516.20; content and format of                 15               5              75              16            1200
 MUMS request...................
516.26; requirements for                       3               1               3               2               6
 amending MUMS designation......
516.27; change in sponsorship...               1               1               1               1               1
516.29; termination of MUMS                    2               1               2               1               2
 designation....................
516.30; requirements of annual                15               5              75               2             150
 reports........................
516.36; insufficient quantities.               1               1               1               3               3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,362
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The burden estimate for this reporting requirement was derived in
our Office of Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Drug Development by
extrapolating the investigational new animal drug/new animal drug
application reporting requirements for similar actions by this same
segment of the regulated industry and from previous interactions with
the minor use/minor species community.

    Dated: August 16, 2016.
Jeremy Sharp,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2016-19919 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55667-55668]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23218]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75889; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Exchange's Pricing Schedule Under Section VIII With Respect to
Execution and Routing of Orders in Securities Priced at $1 or More Per
Share

September 10, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act,'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that, on September 1, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule
under Section VIII, entitled ``NASDAQ OMX PSX FEES,'' with respect to
execution and routing of orders in securities priced at $1 or more per
share.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on September
1, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend a charge and
certain credits for order execution and routing applicable to the use
of the order execution and routing services of the NASDAQ OMX PSX
System (``PSX'') by member organizations for all securities traded at
$1 or more per share.
    The Exchange proposes to slightly decrease the charge to a member
organization entering an order that executes in PSX from $0.0027 to
$0.0026 per share executed in securities on exchanges other than Nasdaq
and NYSE.
    Phlx also proposes to increase the credit for non-displayed orders
from $0.0020 to $0.0023 per share executed for all orders with midpoint
pegging that provide liquidity, but simultaneously decrease the credit
from $0.0005 to $0.0000 per share executed for other non-displayed
orders that provide liquidity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the charge and credits in the fee schedule
under the Exchange's Pricing Schedule under Section VIII are reflective
of the Exchange's ongoing efforts to use pricing incentive programs to
attract order flow to the Exchange and improve market quality. The goal
of these pricing incentives is to provide meaningful incentives for
members to increase their participation on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the slight decrease in the charge to a
member organization entering an order that executes in PSX from $0.0027
to $0.0026 per share executed in securities on exchanges other than
Nasdaq and NYSE is reasonable because it provides such member
organizations with a modest benefit of entering orders on the PSX
System of securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE and
should incentivize more participants in the market.
    Phlx also believes that this proposed rule changes is consistent
with an equitable allocation of fees and are not unfairly
discriminatory because it is uniformly available to all members
entering order that execute on PSX for securities listed on exchanges
other than Nasdaq and NYSE and affects all such members equally and in
the same way.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the non-displayed order
credit for non-displayed orders from $0.0020 to $0.0023 per share
executed for all orders with midpoint pegging that provide liquidity,
but simultaneously decrease the credit from $0.0005 to $0.0000 per
share executed for other non-displayed orders that provide liquidity.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to increase the credit for
all non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging that provide liquidity
is reasonable because it provides

member organizations with a credit designed to incentivize increased
midpoint liquidity on PSX. Additionally, the Exchange believes
providing a greater credit will act as an incentive for members to
increase their participation on the Exchange. The Exchange believes
that the proposed change to decrease to the credit for other non-
displayed orders that provide liquidity is reasonable because the
Exchange no longer needs to provide an incentive for members to provide
liquidity in other non-displayed orders. The Exchange also believes the
proposed change will incentivize greater use of midpoint orders over
other non-displayed orders and thus increase the activity at the
midpoint on the market, which, is beneficial to all members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes to non-
displayed order credits are consistent with an equitable allocation of
fees and are not unfairly discriminatory because they are uniformly
available to all members and affect all members equally and in the same
way.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\5\
Phlx notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor dozens of different competing
exchanges and alternative trading systems if they deem charges at a
particular venue to be excessive, or credit opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its charges and credits to remain competitive
with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own
charges and credits in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which changes to charges and credits in this market
may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In this instance, the slight decrease to the charge to member
organizations entering orders in the PSX System and to credits for non-
displayed orders with midpoint pegging that provide liquidity and for
other non-displayed orders that provide liquidity do not impose a
burden on competition because Exchange membership is optional and is
the subject of competition from other exchanges. These adjustments are
reflective of the intent to increase the order flow on the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Moreover, because there are numerous competitive alternatives to the
use of the Exchange, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result of the changes if they are unattractive to market
participants.
    Accordingly, Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2015-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-78. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-Phlx-2015-78 and should be
submitted on or before October 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23218 Filed 9-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48047-48049]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0811; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-026-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries Powered
Sailplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Diamond Aircraft Industries Model H-36 ``DIMONA'' powered sailplanes.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A report has been received of a failed air brake control system
torsion tube on a Diamond (formerly Hoffman) H 36 powered sailplane.
The results of the subsequent investigation show that the failure
was due to corrosion damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the air brake control system in flight, resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 22,
2011.

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 comments.
     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.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.diamond-air.at. You may review copies of the referenced service information at
the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0811;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-026-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2011-0110, dated June 16, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    A report has been received of a failed air brake control system
torsion tube on a Diamond (formerly Hoffman) H 36 powered sailplane.
The results of the subsequent investigation show that the failure
was due to corrosion damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the air brake control system in flight, resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Diamond published Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) 36-105, containing instructions to test and
inspect the air brake control system torsion tube for corrosion
damage and, depending on findings, the application of anticorrosive
agent to the inside of the torsion tube, or replacement of the
torsion tube with a serviceable part.
    For the reasons described above, this new AD requires repetitive
tests and inspections of the air brake control system torsion tube
and applicable corrective actions, depending on findings.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Service Bulletin No.
MSB 36-105/1, dated May 2, 2011, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105,
dated April 21, 2011. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 9 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4.5 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $172 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,990.50, or $554.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $275, for a cost of
$700 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

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 products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Diamond Aircraft Industries: Docket No. FAA-2011-0811; Directorate
Identifier 2011-CE-026-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 22, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries Model H-36
``DIMONA'' powered sailplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in
any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    A report has been received of a failed air brake control system
torsion tube on a Diamond (formerly Hoffman) H 36 powered sailplane.
The results of the subsequent investigation show that the failure
was due to corrosion damage.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to
failure of the air brake control system in flight, resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Diamond published Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) 36-105, containing instructions to test and
inspect the air brake control system torsion tube for corrosion
damage and, depending on findings, the application of anticorrosive
agent to the inside of the torsion tube, or replacement of the
torsion tube with a serviceable part.

    For the reasons described above, this new AD requires repetitive
tests and inspections of the air brake control system torsion tube
and applicable corrective actions, depending on findings.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 6 months after the effective date of this
AD, remove, test, and inspect the air brake control system torsion
tube for corrosion damage following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April 21, 2011, as specified
in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/
1, dated May 2, 2011.
    (2) If corrosion damage is found during the inspection required
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or during any repetitive inspection
required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD, before further
flight after the inspection in which corrosion damage is found,
replace the affected torsion tube with a serviceable part. Before
installation, apply an anticorrosive agent to the inside of the
torsion tube. Do these required actions following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April 21,
2011. After replacement, repetitively thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 60 months, remove, test, and inspect the newly installed air
brake control system torsion tube for corrosion damage following the
procedures specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If no corrosion damage is found during the inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or during any repetitive
inspection required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD,
before reinstalling the torsion tube, apply an anticorrosive agent
to the inside of the torsion tube. Do these required actions
following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB
36-105, dated April 21, 2011. Repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 60 months, remove, test, and inspect the air brake
control system torsion tube for corrosion damage following the
procedures specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an air
brake control system torsion tube on an affected airplane unless it
has been inspected following the procedures specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, is found to be corrosion free, and an
anticorrosive agent has been applied to the inside of the tube as
specified in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-
MSB 36-105, dated April 21, 2011.
    Note 1: Credit will be given for the initial test and inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and the corrective actions
required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD if already done
before the effective date of this AD following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105, original issue.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2011-0110, dated June 16, 2011; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Service Bulletin No. MSB 36-105/1, dated May 2, 2011; and Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-105, dated April
21, 2011, for related information. For service information related
to this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-
Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622
26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.diamond-air.at. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 26, 2011.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20038 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44237-44238]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0258; FRL-9181-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements Regarding the Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline
Under the Tier 2 Rule (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1907.05, OMB Control
Number 2060-0437

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 27,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0258, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geanetta Heard, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6406J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16786), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0258, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is (202)
566-1742.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential
business information (CBI), or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Regarding the
Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline under the Tier 2 Rule
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1907.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0437.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: With this ICR renewal, EPA is seeking permission to
continue recordkeeping and reporting requirements for refiners and
importers as they relate to gasoline sulfur content of motor vehicles
under Section 211(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 80,
subpart H, and to provide a compliance option whereby a refiner or
importer may demonstrate compliance with the gasoline sulfur control
requirement via test results. These provisions, which have been in
effect since 2006, are designed to grant compliance flexibility.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1
hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Gasoline Refiners, Importers,
Gasoline Terminals, Pipelines, Truckers and Users of Research and
Development Gasoline.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,380.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, monthly and annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 38,498.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,569,634 in labor costs. There are
no annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The annual burdens and cost estimates for
gasoline refiners and importers decreased slightly to account for the
expiration of the requirements for refineries of geographic phase-in
area gasoline. The total hourly burden decreased 75 hours, the total
cost decreased by $4,320 and the total number of responses decreased by
60.

    Dated: July 22, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-18554 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63926-63927]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25001]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; 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:
    Rules 901, 902, 903(a), 904, 905, 906, 907, and 908 of
Regulation SBSR, SEC File No. 270-629 OMB Control No. 3235-0718.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rules
901, 902, 903(a), 904, 905, 906, 907, and 908 of Regulation SBSR (17
CFR 242.901, 902, 903(a), 904, 905, 906, 907, and 908) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Regulation SBSR consists of ten rules, Rules 900 to 909 under the
Exchange Act. Regulation SBSR provides generally for the reporting of
security-based swap information to a registered security-based swap
data repository (``registered SDRs'') or the Commission, and the public
dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing
information by registered SDRs. Rule 901 specifies, with respect to
each reportable event pertaining to covered transactions, who is
required to report, what data must be reported, when it must be
reported, where it must be reported, and how it must be reported. Rule
901(a)(1) of Regulation SBSR requires a platform to report to a
registered security-based swap data repository (``registered SDR'') a
security-based swap executed on such platform that will be submitted to
clearing. Rule 901(a)(2)(i) of Regulation SBSR requires a registered
clearing agency to report to a registered SDR any security-based swap
to which it is a counterparty. Rules 902 to 909 of Regulation SBSR
provide additional details as to how such reporting and public
dissemination is to occur.
    The Commission estimates that a total of approximately 4900
entities will be impacted by Regulation SBSR, including registered
SDRs, registered security-based swap dealers, registered major
securities-based swap participants, registered clearing agencies,
platforms, and reporting sides and other market participants. The
Commission estimates that the total reporting burden for Regulation
SBSR, for all respondents, is approximately 538,257.60 hours initially
(which equates to approximately 179,419.20 hours per year when
annualized over three years), with a total ongoing burden thereafter of
approximately 1,887,021.07 hours per year. Thus, the aggregate yearly
burden is approximately

2,066,441 hours (2,066,440.27 rounded up). In addition, the Commission
estimates that the total cost for all of Regulation SBSR for all
respondents is approximately $21,264,300 initially (which equates to
approximately $7,088,100 per year when annualized over three years),
with a total ongoing cost thereafter of approximately $80,331,371 per
year. Thus, the aggregate annual cost for all respondents is
approximately $87,419,472 ($87,419,471.30 rounded up). A detailed
break-down of the burdens applicable to each type of entity is provided
in the supporting statement.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner,100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: November 8, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25001 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P