[Federal Register: May 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30705-30706]
[DOCID:fr30my06-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53848; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/
k/a New York Stock Exchange LLC); Order Approving a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Amendments to New York Stock Exchange Rules 35
(``Floor Employees to be Registered'') and 301 (``Proposed Transfer or
Lease of Membership'')

May 19, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On December 13, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a New
York Stock Exchange LLC) (``NYSE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC''),
pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change
seeking to amend NYSE Rules 35 (``Floor Employees to be Registered'')
and 301 (``Proposed Transfer or Lease of Membership'') which would
limit access to the Exchange Floor until fingerprint reports have been
properly processed and approved, require an alternative background
check for persons whose fingerprints are deemed illegible, and clarify
that the Exchange would no longer process fingerprint cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was noticed for comment in the Federal
Register on December 29, 2005.\3\ The Commission received no comments
on the proposed rule change. On March 20, 2006, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1.\4\ On May 4, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2
to the proposed rule change. On May 10, 2006, the Exchange withdrew
Amendment No. 2 and filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule
change.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53018 (December 14,
2005), 70 FR 77230 (December 29, 2005).
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange deleted Footnote 1 from the
original filing and clarified that upon the cessation of the sale of
memberships at the end of 2005, the Exchange would no longer provide
fingerprinting services to any of its members. This amendment did
not affect the substance of the proposed rule change; therefore, the
Commission is not noticing this Amendment for public comment.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange made technical changes to
reflect modifications made to the format of NYSE Rule 301 that were
approved as part of SR-NYSE-2005-77. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53382 (February 27, 2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006).
Due to the purely technical nature of Amendment No. 3, the
Commission is not noticing this Amendment for public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    NYSE Rule 35 governs the issuance of Floor tickets (i.e., Regular
Tickets and Special Tickets) to Floor employees, which enables them to
enter upon the trading Floor. NYSE Rule 35.70 requires the
fingerprinting of prospective employees of members and member
organizations. Similarly, NYSE Rule 301(c) requires that prospective
members be fingerprinted.
    Due to security concerns, the Exchange is proposing to tighten
these rules by: (1) Denying access to the Floor for persons
fingerprinted for the first time until the fingerprinting results have
properly been processed and accepted; and (2) subjecting persons whose
fingerprints cannot be read (i.e., are illegible) to an alternative
background check acceptable to the Exchange that would cover the same
criminal convictions included by a fingerprint background check. NYSE's
proposed amendments also reflect that the Exchange no longer accepts
fingerprint cards, but rather requires members and applicants for
membership to be fingerprinted through an agent acceptable to the
Exchange.

A. Background

    Rule 17f-2 under the Exchange Act \6\ sets out the requirements for
the fingerprinting of persons employed in the securities industry. The
Exchange has adopted procedures to comply with the regulations in order
to assure that appropriate persons are fingerprinted and the results of
the fingerprinting are reviewed.\7\ Specifically, prior to providing
member firm employees with Floor ticket access to the Trading Floor and
Exchange facilities, and pursuant to NYSE Rules 35 and 345.11
(``Employees--Registration, Approval, Records''),\8\ a member firm must
electronically submit a Form U4 \9\ via the Central Registration
Depository system (``CRD'').\10\ The hiring member firm and the
employee are responsible for confirming the accuracy of the information
included on the Form U4.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17f-2.
    \7\ See NYSE Information Memos 76-30 dated June 25, 1976 and 76-
53, dated December 31, 1976, announcing, respectively, the adoption
of Exchange Act Rule 17f-2 and SEC approval of the Exchange's plan
for the processing of fingerprints. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 13105 (December 23, 1976), 42 FR 753 (January 4, 1977).
    \8\ NYSE Rule 345.11 requires, among other things, member firms
to thoroughly investigate the previous record of persons whom they
contemplate employing.
    \9\ Form U4 includes information such as an individual's ten-
year employment history, five-year residential history, education,
disciplinary actions, disclosure information, and the SRO of
registration.
    \10\ The CRD is a registration and licensing system for the U.S.
securities industry, state and federal regulators, and SROs. The
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') operates
the CRD pursuant to policies developed jointly with the North
American Securities Administrators Association, Inc.
    \11\ Firms can use CRD to verify the accuracy of the disclosure
portion (e.g., criminal disclosures, regulatory action disclosures)
of Form U4 against previously submitted filings and fingerprint
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members and member organizations currently have up to 30 days from
the date of the electronic filing of the Form U4 application in Web CRD
for the fingerprints to be submitted. The Exchange has represented that
applicants and member organizations sometimes wait until the end of the
30-day period to submit fingerprints, although results from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'') can be reported within 24-48 hours.

B. NYSE's Proposed Rule Change

1. Access to Exchange Floor
    NYSE is proposing that prospective Floor employees not be admitted
to the Floor until the results of the applicant's fingerprinting have
been posted to the CRD, reviewed and approved. NYSE, however, would
grant conditional approval to an applicant who had been fingerprinted
previously in connection with employment by another member or
registered broker-dealer, pending review of the fingerprint results
submitted by the current employer, if the prior employment was within
ninety days of the application.
2. Illegible Fingerprints--Alternative Background Checks
    The Exchange also is proposing to address its concern about
applicants that submit fingerprints which cannot be read (i.e.,
illegible fingerprints). Under Exchange Act Rule 17f-2(a)(l)(iv),\12\
when fingerprints are rejected three times as ``illegible'' by the FBI,
the individual is exempt from further fingerprinting.\13\ Exchange Act

Rule 17f-2 does not require an alternate means of conducting a
background check. To address this possible gap in the background check,
NYSE is proposing to require that members and member organizations
conduct an alternative background check acceptable to the Exchange when
an individual's fingerprints are deemed illegible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17f-2(a)(1)(iv).
    \13\ In this instance, CRD also conducts a ``name check.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be acceptable to the Exchange, any such background
check would have to cover the same criminal convictions included by
fingerprint type on a fifty state basis and, if the applicant is
foreign, an Interpol or other multi-national database check.
Conditional approval would be available to persons previously the
subject of a background check, provided employment with a member or
registered broker-dealer terminated within ninety days of the
application.
3. Acceptance of Fingerprint Cards
    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing revisions to NYSE Rules 35.70 and
301(c) to reflect the fact that the Exchange no longer receives
fingerprint cards directly but does so through agents of the
Exchange.\14\ However, the Exchange's Membership Services Department
will process the fingerprints of member applicants not associated with
broker-dealers (not required to be registered on CRD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NYSE Rule 345.18 (``Employees--Registration, Approval,
Records'') provides that any filing or submission to be made with
the Exchange under that rule, where appropriate, may be made with a
properly authorized agent acting on behalf of the Exchange and shall
be deemed to be a filing with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\15\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \16\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of an
exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market, and to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change should
strengthen the security of the Exchange Floor by not permitting new
Floor employees to be admitted to the Floor until the results of their
fingerprint checks have been posted to the CRD, reviewed and approved.
The Exchange, however, would grant conditional approval to persons
previously fingerprinted, or subject to a background check with a
member or registered broker-dealer, where such prior employment was
within ninety days of the application. The Commission believes that
permitting conditional approval under those conditions is acceptable
given that any such applicant would be under a duty to disclose to the
Exchange any reportable events during such employment to a supervising
broker-dealer who was charged with a duty to report statutory
disqualifications. In addition, the applicant would, of course, have a
duty to disclose any reportable events during the intervening period in
his or her application.
    The Commission also believes that requiring an alternative
background check in the event that an applicant's fingerprints are
deemed illegible and therefore, a fingerprint check is not performed on
an applicant, should strengthen the security of the NYSE Floor. The
Commission notes that in order for an alternative background check to
be acceptable to the Exchange, the background check would, at a
minimum, have to disclose the same arrest records as a fingerprint
check would for all fifty states and, where the applicant is foreign,
through the records of Interpol. Member organizations would be expected
to use appropriate diligence in the selection of investigative agencies
for such background checks, assuring their ability to satisfactorily
research all pertinent databases. The Commission believes that these
standards should ensure that an adequate background check is performed
on all applicants.
    Finally, the Commission believes that is it acceptable for the
Exchange to no longer accept fingerprint cards, and for NYSE Rules 35
and 301 to provide that any individual who is required to submit to a
fingerprint-based background check, have such a check performed by an
agent acceptable to the Exchange. The Exchange has represented that it
believes that the NASD or another self-regulatory organization should
be able to provide these services to any member or applicant that
requires fingerprinting.\17\ Therefore, the Commission believes that
individuals who need to obtain access to fingerprinting services in
order to gain access to the Exchange floor should not be adversely
affected by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Telephone conference among Jennifer Colihan, Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission,
Kristie Diemer, Attorney, Division, Commission, and Gregory Taylor,
Senior Special Counsel, Exchange, on March 22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2005-78) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8235 Filed 5-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20097-20098]
[DOCID:fr19ap06-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0543; FRL-7769-5]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Flufenoxuron in or on Various Food
Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations for
residues of the insecticide flufenoxuron, 1-[4-(2-chloro-,,-trifluoro-
p-tolyloxy)-2-fluorophenyl]-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea] in or on
apple, pear, orange, orange oil, grape, raisin, cattle (meat, meat by-
products, fat), milk, and milk fat.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0543 and pesticide petition number (PP)
8E4943, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
Docket telephone number and hours of operation will remain the same
after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0543. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

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

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Suarez, Registration Division,
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; (703)
305-0120; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 8E4943. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box13528,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide flufenoxuron, 1-[4-(2-chloro-
,,-trifluoro-p-tolyloxy)-2-fluorophenyl]-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea]
in or on food commodities) apple and pear at 1.0 parts per million
(ppm); orange at 0.3 ppm; orange oil at 60.0 ppm; grape at 0.2 ppm;
raisin at 0.8 ppm; cattle meat at 0.30 ppm; cattle meat by-products at
1.5 ppm; fat at 6.0 ppm; milk at 0.6 ppm; and milk fat at 3.0 ppm.
Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring the level of
flufenoxuron residues in the commodities of this petition are submitted
to EPA with this petition. Each analytical method is a high power
liquid chromatography (HPLC) procedure with ultraviolet (UV) detection.
These validated methods are appropriate for the enforcement purposes of
this petition.

List of Subjects

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

    Dated: April 4, 2006.
Meredith F. Laws,
 Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-5873 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


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

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA / Office of Water / Office of Wastewater Management 2. OMB control number b. G None 2040 0239 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Baseline Standards and Best Management Practices for the Coal Mining Point Source Category  Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1944.03 9. Keywords: abandoned mine drainage, coal mining, coal remining, sediment control, water pollution, best management practices, effluent limitations guidelines 10. Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community ( approximately 234 coal remining sites and 46 western alkaline surface coal mining sites) and NPDES permit control authorities ( 10 states) for data collection and record keeping associated with modeling, BMP implementation, baseline monitoring, and performance monitoring requirements of the Coal Mining Point Source  Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory Effluent Limitations Guidelines ( 40 CFR part 434.70 and part 434.80). This is a renewal ICR.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 88 b. Total annual responses 88 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 5,685 d. Current OMB inventory 9,261 e. Difference  3,576 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment  3,576 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

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

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

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jack Faulk Phone: 202 564 0768 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9770]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Woodbine Municipal Airport, Woodbine, NJ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Woodbine Municipal Airport, Woodbine, New Jersey
under the provision 49 U.P.C. 47125(a).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the following address: Mayor William Pikolycky, Chairman, Woodbine
Municipal Airport, 660 Henry DeCinque Boulevard, Woodbine, New Jersey
08270, and at the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office: Lori K.
Pagnanelli, Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905
Hartzdale Dr., Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Ledebohm, Community Planner,
Harrisburg Airports District Office location listed above.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Woodbine Municipal Airport under the
provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On April 20, 2011,
the FAA determined that the request to release property at the Woodbine
Municipal Airport (OBI), New Jersey, submitted by the Woodbine Port
Authority (Authority) met the procedural requirements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Authority requests the release of real property totaling 8.99
acres of non-aeronautical airport property to Paul Gentilini and D.M.A.
Investments, LLC dba Gentilini Ford, Woodbine, NJ. The land was
originally acquired by the Borough of Woodbine in 1947 from the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the USA through the War Assets
Administration. The undeveloped property is located immediately
adjacent to DeHirsch Avenue and Henry DeCinque Drive. Gentilini Ford is
proposing to develop the property as an extension of the existing
automobile dealership, to include parking and service lanes, office
space, parts storage and a maintenance building. The subject land does
not serve an aeronautical purpose and is not needed for airport
development, as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. All proceeds from the
sale of property are to be used for the capital development of the
airport. Fair Market Value (FMV) will be obtained from the land sale
and reinvested back into an AIP eligible project at the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed release from obligations. All comments will be considered by
the FAA to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, February 5, 2013.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-03025 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10499-10501]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2014-0246]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse;
Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent security zone
within Sector Boston's Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone on the waters in
the vicinity of John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston,
MA. This security zone will expedite public notification of high
profile court proceedings at the Moakley Courthouse and is necessary to
protect people, property, and the Port of Boston from subversive acts.

DATES: This rule is effective March 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2014-0246 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston Waterways
Management Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
TFR Temporary Final Rule
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On Thursday November 20, 2014, the Coast Guard published a NPRM in
the Federal Register (79 FR 69078). There we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this security zone. No Public meetings were requested or held. Thirty
formal written comments were received.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively
authorizes the Coast Guard to establish security zones.
    The John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse houses the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. Consequently, high
profile events and court proceedings take place at the Moakley
Courthouse, resulting in a heightened security posture. With this in
mind, the Captain of the Port, Sector Boston, has determined that a
security zone is necessary to better protect and secure persons and
property during high profile court proceedings and events.
    Establishing a security zone on an ad hoc basis is administratively
cumbersome and reduces the opportunity for public participation in the
development of the rule. Thus, to lessen administrative overhead and to
maximize public participation, this rule establishes a security zone
near the courthouse that will remain in effect permanently but will be
enforced only when deemed necessary by the COTP. The COTP will notify
the public of the enforcement of this security zone by publishing a
Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal Register and via the other
means listed in 33 CFR 165.7. This permanent security zone will be
published in 33 CFR 165.120.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    We received ten comments on the NPRM to establish a permanent
security zone within Sector Boston's COTP Zone. The NPRM proposed a
five hundred (500) yard security zone that allowed vessels to enter the
security zone, without permission, as long as such vessels proceeded
through the area with caution and operated at a speed no faster than
that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise
required by the Navigation Rules, as published in 33 CFR part 83 and
remain beyond two hundred and fifty (250) yards of the Moakley
Courthouse. Further, vessels could enter within two hundred and fifty
(250) yards with permission of the COTP or the COTP's representative.
The comments we received were primarily from owners, operators, and
employees of commercial passenger vessels, including the daily commuter
ferry vessels that transfer passengers at the Rowes Wharf Ferry
Terminal. Other comments received were from the property management
company of Rowes Wharf and a non-profit, public interest organization
that promotes a clean, alive, and accessible Boston Harbor.
    While none of the comments expressed concern with the proposed
speed restrictions, there were significant concerns with the two
hundred and fifty (250) yard security zone, in that vessels could not
enter without permission of the COTP. This area entails the entrance
into Fort Point Channel and Rowes Wharf. Rowes Wharf is the number one
passenger transfer marine ferry terminal in Boston Harbor. In each of
the comments, the consensus was that a two hundred and fifty (250) yard
enforced security zone could potentially disrupt the water
transportation system of Boston Harbor, which would have serious
economic impacts upon commercial operators.
    In January 15, 2015, without adequate time to address the comments
regarding the impact of the two hundred and fifty (250) yard security
zone, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule (TFR), entitled
``Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse; Boston,
MA'' (see 80 FR 2013) in preparation for the trial of the Boston
Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, which reduced the restricted area
to one hundred (100) yards. Publishing a new NPRM to reflect this
change and delaying the effective date would have been impracticable
and contrary to the public interest since it would have inhibited the
Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its statutory missions to protect
people, property, and the Port of Boston from subversive acts during
this high profile court proceeding. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard found that good cause existed for publishing
a TFR with an

effective date within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
    The TFR established a five hundred (500) yard security zone that
allowed vessels to enter the security zone, without permission, as long
as such vessels proceeded through the area with caution and operated at
a speed no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course,
unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules, and remain beyond
one hundred (100) yards of the Moakley Courthouse. Further, vessels
could enter within one hundred (100) yards with permission of the COTP
or the COTP's representative.
    The Boston Marathon Trial lasted approximately six months. During
this period while the TFR was being enforced, the Coast Guard received
no negative comments. During multiple port partner meetings throughout
that period, multiple entities who commented on the original NPRM,
noted that the one hundred (100) yard security zone was not an issue,
as it was having no impact on their business.
    The COTP has decided, based on the input from the law enforcement
personnel that enforced the security zone established by the TFR, and
the formal comments made in response to the NPRM, to issue a final rule
on the NPRM that would use a one hundred (100) yard security zone as
used in the TFR vice a two hundred and fifty (250) yard security zone
as proposed in the original NPRM. This modification to the NPRM would
be both adequate to address the concerns articulated by the public and
sufficient to protect and secure persons and property during high
profile court proceedings and events at the John Joseph Moakley United
States Courthouse, Boston, MA.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and (E.O.s) and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. First, based on the comments and
feedback from the NPRM on the permanent security zone and the TFR on
the temporary security zone, we feel that decreasing the two hundred
and fifty (250) yards to one hundred (100) yards will minimize the
impact to vessels, such as commuter ferries servicing Rowes Wharf,
because they will be able to transit their normal routes. Second, the
Courthouse is likely to shut down the harbor dock to water Taxis during
trials. Third, mariners may still pass through the security zone,
within one hundred (100) yards of the Moakley Courthouse, with
authorization from the COTP or a designated on-scene representative.
Finally, such notification of this security zone will be published by
Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal Register, through the local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and through extensive
public outreach.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or

more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
final rule involves the establishment of a permanent security zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under,
paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.120 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.120  Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States
Courthouse, Boston, MA.

    (a) Location. This security zone encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, from surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in
Boston, MA, and following any natural waterside seawall configuration.
    (b) Regulations. While this security zone is being enforced, the
following regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.33,
apply:
    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone
without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector
Boston. However, the COTP hereby grants vessels permission to enter
this security zone as long as such vessels proceed through the area
with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary
to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation
Rules as published in 33 CFR part 83 and remain beyond one hundred
(100) yards of the Moakley Courthouse in Boston, MA, following any
natural waterside seawall configuration enclosed by a line connecting
the following points:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Latitude                                                 Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg]21'15'' N............................  71[deg]02'54'' W.; Bounded by the curvature of the seawall, thence
                                               to
42[deg]21'18'' N............................  71[deg]02'43'' W.; thence to
42[deg]21'20'' N............................  71[deg]02'40'' W.; Bounded by 100 yards off the curvature of the
                                               seawall, thence to
42[deg]21'16'' N............................  71[deg]02'57'' W.; thence to point of origin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Although vessels have permission to enter the five hundred
(500) yards security zone under the conditions mentioned in the
preceding paragraph, no person or vessel may come within one hundred
(100) yards of the Moakley Courthouse under any conditions unless given
express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated
representatives.
    (3) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the security zone shall
comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's
representatives. Upon being hailed by siren, radio, flashing lights, or
other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as
directed. Any person or vessel within the security zone shall exit the
zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP's representatives.
    (4) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals
may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via VHF channel 16 or 617-
223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission.
    (5) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
    (c) Effective and enforcement period. This security zone is in
effect permanently but will only be enforced when deemed necessary by
the COTP. Anyone, including members of federal, state or local law
enforcement agencies, may request that this security zone be enforced.
    (d) Notification. The COTP will notify the public of the
enforcement of this security zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement
(NOE) in the Federal Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR
165.7. Such notifications will include the date and times of
enforcement, along with any pre-determined conditions of entry.
    (e) COTP representative. The COTP's representative may be any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or
local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to
act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast
Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, federal, state or local
law enforcement or safety vessel, or a location on shore.

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
C.C. Gelzer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2016-04429 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P