38325 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2003 / Notices Range of Alternatives for Amending Land and Resources Management Plans, Modoc, Lasser, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sequoia, Sierra, Inyo and Humboldt Toiyabe National Forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Several Counties, CA and NV, Comment Period Ends: September 12, 2003, Contact: Kathleen Morse ( 707) 562   8822. Revision of FR Notice Published on 6/ 13/ 2003: Correction to Contact Telephone Number.

Dated: June 24, 2003. Joseph C. Montgomery, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [ FR Doc. 03   16334 Filed 6   26   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0141; FRL   7304   5]

Region III Strategic Agricultural Initiative Grants; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting proposals to help implement the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) and to support `` transition'' to using less and lower risk pesticides in food production. The program supports innovative efforts that enable growers to decrease reliance on agricultural pesticides while maintaining economical outcomes, by developing, demonstrating and/ or applying reduced risk alternatives and ecologically based integrated approaches to pest management. This grant program encourages `` systems'' approaches that integrate pest, soil, and crop management practices. Although the focus is on reducing dependency on pesticides and developing alternatives to pesticides targeted under FQPA, a broader approach to problem solving is encouraged in the development of project proposals under FQPA and section 20 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) as amended. DATES: Proposals must be postmarked/ received by 5 p. m. eastern standard time, July 31, 2003. ADDRESSES: Proposals may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier to John Butler at the address/ e mail listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Butler, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Mail code 3WC32, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103   2029; telephone number: ( 215) 814   2127; fax number: ( 215) 814   3113; e mail address: butler. 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 eligible applicants who primarily operate out of and will conduct the project in one of the following Region III States: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia or the District of Columbia. 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 Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0141. 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/. Additional information is available on EPA's PESP website at http:// www. epa. gov/ oppbppd1/ PESP/ regional_ grants. htm. 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. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. 3. By mail or in person. Contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Purpose of this Request EPA's, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, Pesticides/ Asbestos Programs & Enforcement Branch, Region III, is requesting proposals which will help implement requirements of FQPA, and to support the transition to using less and lower risk pesticides in food production. The program supports innovative efforts that enable growers to decrease reliance on agricultural pesticides while maintaining economical outcomes, by developing, demonstration and/ or applying reduced risk alternatives and ecologically based integrated approaches to pest management. This program is included in the catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under number 66.716.

III. High Priority Areas for Consideration EPA will award Food Quality Protection Act Strategic Agricultural Initiative grants under the authority of section 20 of FIFRA as amended by FQPA, for projects involving research, development, monitoring, public education, training, demonstrations and studies that enable growers to decrease reliance on agricultural pesticides while maintaining economical outcomes, by developing, demonstration and/ or applying reduced risk alternatives and ecologically based integrated approaches to pest management. These proposals should incorporate the following techniques: 1. Utilize demonstration projects, outreach and/ or education to increase the adoption of integrated or sustainable agricultural production practices which provide alternatives to pesticides impacted negatively by FQPA decisions. 2. Work collaboratively with producers, commodity groups, and other stakeholders by making the best use of expert field consultants, USDA research, EPA's safer substitutes, and university technical support on alternatives and integrated pest management practices. 3. Actively engage scientists, farmers, industry, and local, State and Federal VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 22: 47 Jun 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JNN1. SGM 27JNN1 38326 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2003 / Notices partners in the specifics of implementing FQPA. 4. Demonstrate region specific pest management technologies and integrated crop management systems to replace pesticide uses which may be canceled under FQPA. 5. Use `` farmer to farmer'' training and communication methods, community participation, and/ or other forms of public private cooperation.

IV. Grant Specifics 1. Amount of funding available. A total of approximately $ 100,000 in Federal funds is available to award for projects in Region III. The number of awards will depend on individual proposal cost; the final aggregate amount of Federal funding for all proposals; and the total amount of Federal funding available. Should additional funding become available for award, the Agency may award additional grants based on this solicitation and in accordance with the final selection process, without further notice of competition. 2. Funding type. The funding for selected award projects is in the form of a grant awarded under FIFRA. 3. Right to reject all initial proposals. The Agency reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards. 4. Matching/ cost share requirements. There are no cost share requirements for these projects. However, matching funds are encouraged. 5. Project period time frame. The project period time frame should not exceed 2 years. 6. Eligible applicants. Grant funds are available to non profit groups, including commodity groups/ associations and farmers' groups, State agencies, Tribal governments, cooperative extension, universities, and institutes of higher learning. Ineligible groups are encouraged to work with an eligible organization to submit proposals. Implementation of all projects must occur within one of the States of EPA Region III ( Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia) or the District of Columbia. EPA will consider only one proposal by an applicant. 7. Proposal submittal. All proposals should be mailed or hand delivered to: John Butler, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, Mail code ( 3WC32), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103   2029. 8. Due dates. EPA will consider all proposals which are postmarked by the U. S. Postal Service, hand delivered, or electronically delivered to the Agency, or include official delivery service documentation indicating EPA acceptance from a delivery service, on or before the deadline published in the request for initial proposals. This due date is on or before 5 p. m. eastern standard time, July 31, 2003. Proposals received after the due date will not be considered for funding. 9. Statutory and regulatory authorities. Strategic Agricultural Initiative Grants will be awarded under the authority of section 20 of FIFRA, as amended, for research, public education, training, monitoring, demonstration and studies. The regulations governing the award and administration of these grants can be found at 40 CFR part 30 for institutions of higher education, colleges and universities, and non profit organizations; and 40 CFR part 31 for States and local governments. 10. Allowable costs. EPA grant funds may only be used for the purposes set forth in the grant agreement, and must be consistent with the statutory authority for the award. Grant funds may not be used for matching funds for other Federal grants, lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, Federal funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other government entity. All costs identified in the budget must conform to applicable Federal Cost Principles contained in OMB Circular A   87; A   122; and A   21, as appropriate. 11. Federal requirements. An applicant whose proposal is selected for Federal funding must complete additional forms prior to award ( see 40 CFR 30.12 and 31.10). In addition, successful applicants will be required to certify that they have not been debarred or suspended from participation in Federal assistance awards in accordance with 40 CFR part 32. 12. Intergovernmental review. Applicants must comply with the Intergovernmental Review Process and/ or consultation provisions of Executive Order 12372 or section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, if applicable, which are contained in 40 CFR part 29. Further information regarding this requirement will be provided if your proposal is selected for funding. 13. Pre application assistance. None planned.

V. Proposal Format and Contents Proposals must be typewritten, double spaced in 12 point or larger print using 8.5 x 11 inch paper with minimum 1 inch horizontal and vertical margins. Pages must be numbered in order starting with the cover page and continuing through the appendices. One original and one electronic copy ( e mail or disk) is required. All proposals must include: 1. Completed Standard Form SF 424*, Application for Federal Assistance. Please include organization fax number and e mail address. 2. Completed Section B Budget Categories, on page 1 of Standard Form SF 424A*, ( See Unit IV. 10. Allowable Cost). Blank forms may be located at http:// www. epa. gov/ region03/ grants/ appforms. htm. 3. Detailed itemization of the amounts budgeted by individual Object Class Categories ( See Unit IV. 10. Allowable Cost). 4. Statement regarding whether this proposal is a continuation of a previously funded project. If so, please provide the assistance number and status of the current grant/ cooperative agreement. 5. Executive Summary. The Executive Summary shall be a stand alone document, not to exceed one page, containing the specifics of what is proposed and what you expect to accomplish regarding measuring or movement toward achieving project goals. This summary should identify the measurable environmental results you expect including potential human health and ecological benefits. 6. Table of contents. A one page table listing the different parts of your proposal and the page number on which each part begins. 7. Proposal narrative. Includes Parts I   VI ( Parts I through VI listed below are not to exceed 10 pages).   Part I Project title. Self explanatory.   Part II Objectives. A numbered list ( 1, 2, etc.) of concisely written project objectives, in most cases, each objective can be stated in a single sentence.   Part III Justification. For each objective listed in Part II, discuss the potential outcome in terms of environmental, human health, pesticide risk and/ or use reduction or pollution prevention. If appropriate, the target pest( s) and crop( s) should be explicitly stated. This section should be numbered with a justification corresponding to each objective.   Part IV Literature review. Briefly, describe relevant information currently available. This should also include information on projects currently in progress that are relevant to or provide the basis for either the experimental design or the validation of a new approach to pest management.   Part V Approach and methods. Describe in detail how the program will be carried out. Describe how the system VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 22: 47 Jun 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JNN1. SGM 27JNN1 38327 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2003 / Notices or approach will support the program goals.   Part VI Impact assessment. Please state how you will evaluate the success of the program in terms of measurable environmental results. How and with what measures will humans or ecosystems be better protected as a result of the program. 8. Proposal appendices. These appendices must be included in the grant proposal. Additional appendices are not permitted.   Literature cited. List cited key literature references alphabetically by author.   Timetable. A timetable that includes what will be accomplished under each of the objectives during the project and when completion of each objective is anticipated.   Major participants. This appendix should list all farmers, farm organizations, researchers, educators, and conservationists and others having a major role in the proposal. Provide name, organizational affiliation or occupation ( such as farmer) and a description of the role each will play in the project. A brief resume ( not to exceed two pages) should be submitted for each major researcher or other educator. 9. Electronic copy. The electronic copy should be e mailed to butler. john@ epa. gov or submitted on a 3.5 disk, IBM compatible, readable in Word Perfect WP6/ 7/ 8 for Windows. The electronic copy should be consolidated into a single file. Original copy and disk should be sent to: John Butler, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code ( 3WC32), Philadelphia, PA 19103   2029. Disks will be checked for computer viruses. Proposals that are submitted with viruses will be disqualified. To be considered, both the paper and electronic copy must be received by the due date.

VI. Preliminary Eligibility Screening Requirements To be eligible for consideration, applicants must meet all of the following criteria. Failure to meet the following criteria will result in the automatic disqualification of the proposal for funding consideration: 1. Be a applicant who is eligible to receive funding under this announcement. 2. The proposal must address one of more of the High Priority Areas for Consideration. 3. The proposal must meet all format and content requirements contained in this notice. 4. The proposal must comply with the directions for submittal contained in this notice.

VII. Proposed Evaluation Criteria All proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria and weights ( Total: 100 points) : 1. Qualification and experience of the applicant relative to the proposed project activity. ( Weighting: 30 points) 2. Project proposal is consistent with the goals of the FQPA Strategic Agricultural Initiative. ( Weighting: 30 points) 3. Provisions for a quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the project success at achieving stated goals. ( Weighting: 20 points) 4. Likelihood that the project can be replicated in other areas by other organizations to their benefit. ( Weighting: 20 points)

VIII. Processes A. Evaluation Process Applicants will be screened to ensure that they meet all eligibility criteria and will be disqualified if they do not meet the criteria. All proposals will be reviewed, evaluated, and ranked by a selected panel of EPA reviewers based on the evaluation criteria listed in Unit VII.

B. Selection Process The funding decision will be made from the group of top rated proposals based on the following additional factors:   Region III's environmental priorities which include preventing pollution from one media to another and to strive towards the reduction or elimination of environmental contamination.   The extent of anticipated environmental impact of the project in Region III. 1. Selection official. The final selection of initial proposals will be made by the Region III, Director, Waste & Chemicals Management Division. 2. Notification. The Region III EPA Office will mail acknowledgments to applicants upon receipt of the proposal. Once proposals have been reviewed, evaluated, and ranked, applicants will be notified regarding the outcome of the competition. A listing of the successful proposals will be posted on the Region III website address at the conclusion of the competition. This website may also contain additional information about this announcement including information concerning deadline extensions or other modifications. C. Dispute Resolution Process The procedures for dispute resolution at 40 CFR 30.63 and 40 CFR 31.70 apply.

IX. Confidential Business Information Applicants should clearly mark information contained in their proposal which they consider confidential business information. EPA reserves the right to make final confidentially decisions in accordance with Agency regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. If no such claim accompanies the proposal when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant.

X. Congressional Review Act Under the Agency's current interpretation of the definition of a `` rule,'' grant solicitations such as this which are competitively awarded on the basis of selection criteria, are considered rules for the purpose of the Congressional Review Act ( CRA). The CRA, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rules must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 6, 2003.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [ FR Doc. 03   16332 Filed 6   26   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 22: 47 Jun 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JNN1. SGM 27JNN1


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 64504]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3583-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-3583-DR), dated September 18,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 5, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 21, 2022.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-23117 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 67339-67340]
[DOCID:fr28no07-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Solicitation of Applications for FY 2008, Commercial Motor
Vehicle (CMV) Operator Safety Training Grant Opportunity

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has published an opportunity to apply
for FY 2008 funding for the CMV Operator Safety Training Grant on the
grants.gov Web site (http://www.grants.gov). This opportunity was
established by Section 4134 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU,
Pub. L. 109-59). This legislation requires grant recipients to train
current and future drivers in the safe operation of CMVs, as defined in
Section 31301 of Title 49, United States Code. Funding priority will be
given to regional or multi-state educational or nonprofit associations
serving economically distressed regions of the United States. Eligible
awardees can also include State governments, local governments, and
accredited post-secondary educational institutions (public or private)
such as colleges, universities, vocational-technical schools and truck
driver training schools. To apply for funding, applicants must first be
registered with grants.gov at the following link: http://
www.grants.gov/applicants/get--registered.jsp. Note that grants.gov
registration takes three to five business days to process your
information before you can apply. Applications for grant

funding must be submitted electronically to the FMCSA through the
grants.gov Web site following the instructions provided on the site.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the CMV
Safety Training Grant Opportunity 20.235.

DATES: FMCSA will initially consider funding of applications submitted
by January 5, 2008 from qualified applicants. If additional funding
remains available, applications submitted after January 5, 2008 will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Funds will not be available for
allocation until such time as FY 2008 appropriations legislation is
passed and signed into law. Funding is subject to reductions resulting
from obligation limitations or rescissions as specified in SAFETEA-LU
or other legislation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Julie Otto, Transportation
Specialist, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of
Safety Programs, State Programs Division (MC-ESS),<PHONE_NUMBER>, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

    Issued on: November 19, 2007.
Michael Lamm,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. E7-23108 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61816-61819]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-140]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54601; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Rules 3350 and 4755

October 13, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 27, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or
``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and II
below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. On October 12, 2006,
Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ Nasdaq has
requested that this proposal, as amended, be approved on an accelerated
basis by October 16, 2006 to coincide with the launch of Nasdaq's new
Single Book execution system. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons. In addition, the Commission is granting accelerated
approval of the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the original filing,
Nasdaq made certain technical and clarifying changes following
discussions with Commission staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify Nasdaq Rule 3350(a) to establish the
national best bid rather than the Nasdaq best bid, as the basis for
determining compliance with Nasdaq Rule 3350(a).
    Nasdaq also proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 4755(a)(2) to clearly
describe the test that Nasdaq's Single Book execution system will use
to validate for compliance with applicable short sale rules for all
securities that trade through the system.
    The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is below.
Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in
brackets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic NASDAQ Manual found at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com.

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

* * * * *
3350 Short Sale Rule
    (a) With respect to trades executed on Nasdaq, no member shall
effect a short sale for the account of a customer or for its own
account in a Nasdaq Global Market security at or below the current best
(inside) bid displayed in the [Nasdaq Market Center] National Market
System when the current best (inside) bid is below the preceding best
(inside) bid in the security. For purposes of this rule, the term
``customer'' includes a non-member broker-dealer.
    (b)-(l) No Change.
* * * * *
4755. Order Entry Parameters
(a) System Orders
    (1) No Change.

    (2) Short Sale Compliance-System orders to sell short shall not be
executed if the execution of such an order would violate any applicable
short sale regulation of the SEC or Nasdaq. For Nasdaq securities, the
System shall validate for short sale compliance using a bid tick based
upon changes to the national best bid and offer disseminated pursuant
to an effective transaction reporting plan. For NYSE and Amex
securities, the System shall validate for short sale compliance based
upon changes to the consolidated last sale disseminated pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan.
    (3)-(4) No Change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item III below. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes to modify Rule 3350(a) and Rule 4755(a)(2) to state
that short sale compliance for Nasdaq securities will be based upon
changes to the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') as is currently
the case in the INET system, as opposed to changes in the Nasdaq best
bid as is currently the case in the Nasdaq Market Center.
    Background. Nasdaq states that section 10(a) of the Act gives the
Commission plenary authority to regulate short sales of securities
registered on a national securities exchange, as needed to protect
investors. Nasdaq notes that although the Commission has regulated
short sales since 1938, that regulation has been limited to short sales
of exchange-listed securities. Nasdaq states that in 1992, Nasdaq,
believing that short-sale regulation was important to the orderly
operation of securities markets, proposed a short sale rule for trading
of Nasdaq National Market securities that incorporated the protections
provided by SEC Rule 10a-1. Nasdaq notes that on June 29, 1994, the SEC
approved the NASD's short sale rule applicable to short sales in Nasdaq
Global Market securities.\5\ Nasdaq states that in its January 13,
2006, order approving Nasdaq's registration as a national securities
exchange, the Commission granted Nasdaq an exemption from Rule 10a-1 to
permit the application of Nasdaq Rule 3350 (the ``Nasdaq Rule'') rather
than SEC Rule 10a-1 to the trading of Nasdaq-listed securities on
Nasdaq.\6\ Nasdaq notes, however, that SEC Rule 10a-1 continues to
apply to the trading of securities listed on other national securities
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Formerly referred to as ``Nasdaq National Market''
securities. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54071 (June 29,
2006); 71 FR 38922 (July 10, 2006) (approving name change).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq states that the Nasdaq Rule employs a ``bid'' test rather
than a tick test because Nasdaq trades are not necessarily reported to
the tape in chronological order. Nasdaq notes that, currently, its
short sale rule prohibits short sales at or below the inside bid when
the current inside bid is below the previous inside bid. Nasdaq notes
that it calculates the inside bid from all market makers in the
security and disseminates symbols to denote whether the current inside
bid is an ``up-bid'' or a ``down-bid.'' In addition, Nasdaq notes that
to effect a ``legal'' short sale on a down-bid, the short sale must be
executed at a price at least $.01 above the current inside bid. Nasdaq
states that the Nasdaq Rule is in effect from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m.
each trading day. Also, Nasdaq notes that from the time the Nasdaq Rule
was implemented until December of 2002, Nasdaq utilized the NBBO to
calculate the bid tick used to determine short sale compliance.
    Nasdaq states that in December of 2002, Nasdaq modified the method
it used to calculate the last bid by having it refer to the ``Nasdaq
Inside'' which is comprised of quotations from all participants in the
Nasdaq Market Center (known then as SuperMontage), rather than
referring to the NBBO.\7\ Nasdaq notes that it currently calculates and
applies the Nasdaq-based bid tick indicator to all Nasdaq Market Center
trades. With respect to trades executed outside Nasdaq execution
systems and reported to Nasdaq, however, Nasdaq states that Nasdaq
participants have been permitted to validate for short sale compliance
by reference either to the NBBO-based bid tick or to the Nasdaq-based
bid tick, provided that each firm selects and applies a single bid tick
indicator for all such trades executed by that firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46999 (December 13,
2002); 67 FR 78534 (December 24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq notes that it elected to apply the Nasdaq-based bid tick
because at that time the NBBO was regularly different from the best bid
that was reasonably accessible to many market participants. Nasdaq
states that this would occur when a market that was relatively
inaccessible, such as a manual, floor-based market with no electronic
linkages, submitted a bid to the network processor that became part of
the NBBO. When that bid created a down arrow for the NBBO-based bid
tick, Nasdaq participants would be precluded from executing short
sales, absent an exemption. Nasdaq notes that this was true even where
Nasdaq participants could not access the other market and even though
that market did not itself impose a bid-based short sale restriction.
In that case, Nasdaq states that the Nasdaq participant could not
execute a short sale on Nasdaq due to the downward bid tick, nor could
it execute the sale on the inaccessible market due to the absence of a
linkage with that market. Nasdaq notes that at the same time, Nasdaq's
execution system could be forced to halt processing while the
inaccessible market set the NBBO. Nasdaq believed that this situation
was inequitable and that the appropriate outcome was to establish a bid
tick based upon quotes that were accessible through Nasdaq systems.
    Rationale for Proposal. Nasdaq states that its rationale for using
the Nasdaq-based bid tick rather than the NBBO-based bid tick for short
sale compliance is less powerful today, and there are countervailing
interests today that did not exist in 2002. Nasdaq states that as
Nasdaq and the rest of the industry approach the implementation of
Regulation NMS, the NBBO has assumed, and will continue to assume,
increased importance, and participants will modify their systems to
utilize the NBBO for a variety of trading, routing, and compliance
purposes. Nasdaq notes that the majority of Nasdaq members are using
the NBBO-based bid tick rather than the Nasdaq-based bid tick, and it
is expected that more firms will do so as they program their systems to
comply with Regulation NMS. Thus, Nasdaq states that to maintain its
use of the Nasdaq-based bid tick would, at this point in time, fly in
the face of overwhelming regulatory and industry momentum.
    Nasdaq believes that due to the relative activity on Nasdaq's
systems, it will be far more disruptive for Nasdaq to apply the Nasdaq-
based bid tick than

to apply the NBBO-based bid tick. Nasdaq states that the INET system
currently uses the NBBO-based bid tick, and it accounts for
approximately 32 percent of consolidated trading in Nasdaq securities,
whereas the Nasdaq Market Center accounts for approximately 11 percent
market share in Nasdaq securities. Therefore, Nasdaq believes it will
be less disruptive to continue using the NBBO-based bid tick employed
by current INET users.
    In addition, Nasdaq notes that the NASD recently announced that all
NASD members that execute short sales in the over-the-counter market
must utilize the NBBO-based bid tick no later than November 3, 2006.
Thus, Nasdaq states that since the vast majority of Nasdaq members are
also NASD members that trade over-the-counter, Nasdaq members are
already on notice that their systems must use the NBBO-based bid tick
for short sale compliance by November 3. Nasdaq states that by moving
to the NBBO-based bid tick, Nasdaq will be creating uniformity among
joint NASD/Nasdaq members that trade Nasdaq securities on Nasdaq and in
the over-the-counter markets. In addition, Nasdaq notes that this
coincides almost exactly with the final roll-out of Nasdaq's new Single
Book execution system. Nasdaq states that it would be more disruptive
to require Nasdaq to continue to apply the Nasdaq-based bid tick during
the roll-out of the Single Book execution system.
    Nasdaq is also proposing to amend Rule 4755(a)(2) to clearly
describe the test that Nasdaq's Single Book execution system will use
to validate for compliance with applicable short sale rules for all
securities that trade through the system. Nasdaq states that for
Nasdaq-listed securities, the rule states that the system will use a
bid tick based upon the NBBO. For NYSE- and Amex-listed securities, the
system will use a tick based upon changes to the last sale reported
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan for those
securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general,
and with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-037 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-037.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. 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-NASDAQ-2006-037 and should
be submitted on or before November 9, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that modification
of the method used to calculate the bid tick indicator to determine the
permissibility of a short sale and the clarification regarding which
short sale price test Nasdaq's Single Book execution system will use to
validate for compliance for short sales traded through the system are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among other things, that
Nasdaq's rules 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 a national market system, and in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has requested that the Commission find good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the 30th day
after publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. Nasdaq has
confirmed to the Commission that it would be more disruptive to market
participants to continue to determine the permissibility of a short
sale based on the Nasdaq-based bid tick rather than on the NBBO-based
bid tick following implementation of Nasdaq's Single Book execution
system. In addition, Nasdaq has stated that it does not believe that
firms will face compliance issues, from a systems perspective or
otherwise, if Nasdaq's Single Book execution system validates for short
sale compliance based on the NBBO-based bid tick rather than on the
Nasdaq-based bid tick. Thus, the Commission finds good cause exists,
consistent with sections 6(b)(5)

and 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
amended, on an accelerated basis, prior to the 30th day after the date
of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5); 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2006-037) is approved on an
accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17441 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29362]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11910]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0787; FRL-9911-13-OAR]

Approval of States' Requests To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure Volatility Standard in Florida, and the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Areas in North Carolina

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse comments, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the March 31, 2014, direct final
rule to approve requests from Florida and North Carolina for the EPA to
relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Standard applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in
six counties in Florida, and in counties in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill Area (also referred to as the ``Triangle Area'') and the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Area (also referred to as the
``Triad Area'') in North Carolina. The EPA is considering these
comments and will address the comments in a subsequent action that is
to be published soon. The EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 17889 on March 31,
2014, is withdrawn as of May 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rudolph Kapichak, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 31, 2014 (79 FR 17889), the EPA
published a direct final rule approving a request from Florida to
change the summertime RVP standard for Broward, Dade, Duval,
Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas counties in Florida from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2).
Additionally, in that direct final rule the EPA approved a request from
North Carolina to change the summertime RVP standard for the Triangle
and Triad Areas from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The Triangle Area is comprised of
Durham and Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of
Granville County. The Triad Area is comprised of the counties of
Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford in their entirety, and the portion of
Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North
Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River. In
previous rulemakings, the EPA approved state implementation plan
revisions from Florida and North Carolina which provided technical
analyses that demonstrated that removal of the Federal RVP requirements
of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each
year in the six counties in Florida, and the North Carolina Triangle
and Triad Areas would not interfere with maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards in these areas. In the direct final rule,
the EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by April 30,
2014, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On March 29,
2014, the EPA received a comment letter. The EPA interprets the
comments in that letter as adverse and, therefore, the EPA is
withdrawing the direct final rule. The EPA will address these comments
in a separate final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action at
79 FR 17966 (March 31, 2014). The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.
    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 80.27 which published in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2014, at 79 FR 17895 is withdrawn as of
May 22, 2014.

    Dated: May 15, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-11910 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51411-51413]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0794]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Saint Simons Sound, GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 08, 2019, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah
issued an Emergency Safety Zone in response to the grounding/capsizing
of the M/V GOLDEN RAY (31[deg]07'39.66 North, 081[deg]24'10.58 West,
between Saint Simons Lighthouse and the north end of Jekyll Island, in
the vicinity of green buoy #19). This Emergency Safety Zone prohibited
all vessels from approaching within 0.5 nautical miles of M/V GOLDEN
RAY, unless authorized by the COTP. As of September 13, 2019, this
Emergency Safety Zone remained in effect for all vessels of 500 GT and
above. No vessels 500 GT and above were able to transit within 0.5
nautical miles of the M/V GOLDEN RAY unless specifically authorized by
the COTP. For all other vessels, the Emergency Safety Zone was enforced
for 150 yards surrounding the site. No vessel could transit within 150
yards of the M/V GOLDEN RAY unless specifically authorized by the COTP.
As of September 19, 2019, USCG Captain of the Port Savannah has
adjusted the safety zone surrounding the M/V GOLDEN RAY, so that no
vessel is authorized access within 150 yards of the M/V GOLDEN RAY,
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. The previous safety zone
established on September 12, 2019 is terminated.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from September 30,
2019 until no longer deemed necessary by the COTP Savannah. For the
purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from September 19,
2019 through September 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0794 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 MST1 Rachel Crowe, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of
Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension
243, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable due
to the emergent situation. Immediate action is needed to respond to the
potential safety hazards created by the M/V GOLDEN RAY. The Coast Guard
received information on September 8, 2019 regarding the vessel laying
over on its side and impeding the navigable channel. Because of the on-
going dangers posed by the grounded M/V GOLDEN RAY, this safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine
environment in the incident area. Therefore, it is impracticable to
delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect the safety
of waterway users.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register Delaying the effective date of this
rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the M/V GOLDEN
RAY.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1233). The COTP Savannah has determined
that potential hazards associated with the M/V GOLDEN RAY casualty,
will be a safety concern for anyone transiting in the area. This rule
is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
the navigable waters within the safety zone while salvage and response
operations are on going.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on September 19, 2019
surrounding the M/V GOLDEN RAY. No vessel is authorized access within
150 yards of the M/V GOLDEN RAY, unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port. The previous safety zone established on September 12, 2019 is
terminated.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and hazards associated with the vessel, as well as the
complexity of salvage and pollution response operations. The safety
zone is limited in size and will cover all navigable waters within a
150-yard radius of the M/V GOLDEN RAY for all vessels--a size necessary
to ensure the safe operations of salvage and pollution response. No
vessel is authorized access within 150 yards of the M/V GOLDEN RAY,
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. The Coast Guard will
provide notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community
by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16, a Marine Safety Information Bulletin release, and an
INMARSAT C message to NAVAREA IV. This notice allows mariners to make
alternative plans or seek permission to transit the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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. 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 or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a 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 would 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 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 an 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
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 rule involves
a safety zone lasting until the COTP Savannah determines the M/V GOLDEN
RAY is no longer a hazard to the safety of persons and vessels
transiting the area. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L 60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures

5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 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.  2019-0794 to read as follows:

Sec.  2019-0794  Safety Zone; M/V GOLDEN RAY; Saint Simons Sound, GA.

    (a) Regulated area. The following areas are established as safety
zones: All navigable waters within a 150-yard radius surrounding the M/
V GOLDEN RAY, which is, grounded in position 31[deg]07'39.66 North,
081[deg]24'10.58 West, between Saint Simons lighthouse and the north
end of Jekyll Island, in the vicinity of green buoy #19. All
coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast
Guard vessels or aircraft, and federal, state, and local officers
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah in
the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel is authorized access within 150
yards of the M/V GOLDEN RAY, unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the safety zone may contact COTP Savannah by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
is granted by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP Savannah or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide actual notice of the regulated
area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine
Safety Information Bulletin, on-scene designated representatives, and
an INMARSAT C message to NAVAREA IV.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced starting
September 19, 2019, and will be in effect until further notice.

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Norm C. Witt,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Savannah.
[FR Doc. 2019-20781 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 44182]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

System Wide Information Management (SWIM) Interactive Developer
Workshop; Meeting Announcement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

System Wide Information Management (SWIM) Interactive Developer
Workshop; Meeting Announcement

    Tuesday, September 22, 2015 to Thursday, September 24, 2015--From
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., FAA Florida NextGen Test Bed, 557 Innovation
Way, Daytona Beach, FL 32114.

Open Meeting--Interactive Workshop

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) invites all interested
stakeholders with a background in software development to attend an
interactive workshop on System Wide Information Management (SWIM) at
the state of the art NextGen Test Bed in Daytona Beach, FL. Join fellow
developers as the FAA introduces and demonstrates current and new data
services being made available from the agency's enterprise information
gateway. Socializing new ideas on how to work with data from SWIM and
what applications can be developed will be highly encouraged by the
organizers.
    Participants to the workshop who have an existing graphical user
interface that visualizes data are encouraged to bring their
application to use during the workshop. Participants that do not have
an interface may be provided one at no cost. All participants must
bring their own hardware (laptop preferred) to use during the event.
    The FAA will be providing a connection to the Research &
Development Data Domain allowing participants to engage and interact
real time with data from SWIM in a non-operational environment. The
following data types will be introduced and available to work with
during the event:

 Notices to Airmen (NOTAM)
 Common Sourced Weather
 Terminal Data Distribution Services
 Flight Data Publication Services
 Traffic Flow Management Publication Services

    Participants will be highly encouraged to introduce ideas of how
they would incorporate SWIM data into their operation or application
both before and after working with the data types provided. For more
information or to register, visit www.faa.gov/nextgen/swim.
    Space is limited so register early to secure a spot! Registration
will close when all spots have been filled!

About SWIM

    System Wide Information Management (SWIM) is the FAA's data
distribution backbone of NextGen, the Next Generation Air
Transportation System. SWIM utilizes a ``one to many'' data
distribution model, allowing easier access to more data, providing it
to the right person, at the right time, in the format they want. SWIM
utilizes industry standard service oriented architecture (SOA)
technology to be interoperable with many types of applications capable
of web service and java based messaging. The FAA is also leading the
use of standard data exchange models such as Aeronautical Information
Exchange (AIXM) and Flight Information Exchange (FIXM).

Paul Fontaine,
Director, NextGen Portfolio Management and Technology Development,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-18213 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22699]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee and Board of Directors
Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. (SPP) Regional Entity Trustee (RE), Regional State Committee
(RSC) and Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part
of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 616 West 7th
Street, Tulsa, OK 74127. The hotel phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SPP RE

    April 25, 2011 (8:30 a.m.-2 p.m.).

SPP RSC

    April 25, 2011 (1 p.m.-5 p.m.).

SPP Board of Directors

    April 26, 2011 (8 a.m.-3 p.m.).

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1419, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-659, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1050, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-104, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-696, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-941, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-1069, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-1254, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-1269, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-1697, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-2244, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-13, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2303, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2428, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2528, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2711, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2719, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2725, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2736, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2758, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2781, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2783, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2787, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2828, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2837, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2861, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2881, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2916, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3025, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3065, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3073, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3130, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3133, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3154, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3159, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3230, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3299, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3331, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34, Midwest Independent System Transmission Operator,
Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 18, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9808 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7683]
[DOCID:fr19fe09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13341-000]

Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

February 11, 2009.
    On December 8, 2008, Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Gastineau Channel Tidal
Project, to be located on Gastineau Channel in City and Borough of
Juneau, Alaska.
    The proposed Gastineau Channel Tidal Project consists of: (1) 6 to
12 proposed Red Hawk TISEC generating units having a total installed
capacity of 24 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC,
project would have an average annual generation of 613.2 megawatt-hours
and be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Roger Bason, Natural Currents Energy
Services, 24 Roxanne Boulevard, Highland, New York 12561, phone (845)
691-4009.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13341) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3454 Filed 2-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 28057-28058]
[DOCID:fr15my06-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53778; File No. SR-Amex-2005-125]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to Dual Listing

 May 9, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 5, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend (i) Sections 140 and
141 of the Amex Company Guide and the Amex Fee Schedule to reduce the
listing fees for companies listed on another securities market that
dual list on the Amex, and (ii) Amex Rule 118 to include in the scope
of the Rule securities listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (formerly
referred to as the Nasdaq SmallCap Market) and to accommodate the dual
listing of securities listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and the
Nasdaq National Market. Additionally, the Amex proposed minor,
technical changes to Amex Rules 7, 24, 109, 115, 126, 128A, 131, 135A,
156, 170, 190 and 205, and Sections 142 and 950 of the Company Guide to
reflect the proposed changes to Amex Rule 118. On March 21, 2006, Amex
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for notice and
comment in the Federal Register on April 4, 2006.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53563 (March 29, 2006),
71 FR 16839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 self-regulatory organization.\4\
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\5\ in that it is
designed to provide an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using the
Amex's facilities, and to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission also believes the proposed rule change is not designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purpose of the Act or the administration of
the Amex. The Commission believes that competition among listing
markets has the potential

to benefit the public, issuers, and the listing markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving the 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).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-Amex-2005-125), be and
hereby is approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7324 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Peer Review Comments on:

Technical Background Document: Mercury Wastes Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury and Technical Background Document: Mercury Wastes Evaluation of Treatment of Mercury Surrogate Waste July 2, 2002 Submitted by:

Bart Simmons, Ph. D. Hazardous Materials Laboratory Department of Toxic Substances Control 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 515 Berkeley, CA 94704 Submitted to:

Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Environmental Management Group 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, Virginia 20190 and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 EPA Contract No. 68 W0 0122 Work Assignment No. 0 2 SAIC Project No. 06 0758 08 4042 000 " Evaluation of Mercury Surrogate Waste"

1. Was the experimental design of the study appropriate?

The design did not follow the Data Quality Objectives process, nor a similar planning process. As a result, there is little relationship between the objectives and the design. A RCRA disposal scenario was implied, but the pH range did not extend to pH 12.5, and data show, e. g., Figure 5.3, that major changes occur in extraction at high pH.

The QAPP for this study was also included in the electronic file for the evaluation of bulk elemental mercury. A statement of accreditation for the labs could have been substituted for much of the generic material in the QAPP.

2. Was the study conducted properly?

The appropriate procedures were used, and the study appears to have been done as planned.

3. Were the stated objectives adequately met?

The first objective in the peer review charge was to evaluate alternative treatment technologies to obtain a goal of 0.025 mg/ L Hg over a range of pH 2 to pH 12. This objective was adequately met with the exception of an apparent sample heterogeneity problem.

The second objective was to compare constant pH protocol results to standard TCLP results. This was adequate with the exception of the apparent sample heterogeneity.

General Questions 1. Are you aware of any other data/ studies that are relevant to the assessment of stabilized mercury bearing wastes and the behavior of these wastes in the environment?

This report does not have a list of baseline references, so the question is very broad. A start would be the studies completed for EPA or used by EPA in previous rule making. Second would be a literature review using appropriate keywords 2. With regard to the disposal of treated mercury wastes, are additional studies warranted for other factors that impact solubility ( e. g., liquid/ solid ratio, redox conditions, leachate composition) or affect ability to leach, such as use of macroencapsulation? If you believe that additional studies are needed, please explain why. An additional study is needed to supplement this report, particularly extractions up to at least pH 12.5. If the mercuric selenide process is considered a viable technology, then mercuric selenide containing waste should be evaluated over the range of pH 2 12.5 and with varied chloride content in the leachate. Additional studies on other factors could be done, but the priorities seem to be: pH effects ( 2 12.5), leachate composition ( e. g., chloride) effects, and redox effects. A decision should be made about how accurately a waste treatment evaluation needs to be, then deciding on the relative importance of variables.

3. Do you agree that the following statements are supported by the research results?

a) Site specific disposal conditions must be considered along with appropriate treatment technology as decisions are made about disposal of mercury wastes.

No. The study provides useful data on pH effects, but it does not provide adequate data to support an absolute requirement for site specific data. An alternative to using site specific conditions is a robust treatment standard which addresses the most important variables. A major implementation problem with requiring site specific conditions is the regulatory feasibility of using site specific information. For any disposal of hazardous wastes, treated or untreated, it is scientifically preferable to use site specific conditions as well as the waste properties. It is not obvious that using site specific data would be better than non site specific approaches to meet the public health and environmental protection goals, in part because those specific goals are not stated in this report.

b) The presence of chloride ions in a given disposal environment may significantly impact the release from a treated waste form ( mercury selenide)

This is discussed in the elemental mercury review.

Any additional comments?

Table 3 1 presumably shows target concentrations and not actual measured concentrations.

Section 3.3.1 lists the worker protection standard as 0.05 g/ m3, but Section lists the TLV as 0.025 mg/ m3.

The conclusions in Section 5.6 refer to "... waste bulk elemental mercury..." although this study included several forms of mercury. " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury"

1. Was the experimental design of the study appropriate?

The design followed neither EPA guidance nor requirements for the use of Data Quality Objectives. I could not find the QAPP for this project ( the included QAPP appeared identical to the QAPP for the surrogate sludge project), but it apparently dealt with only laboratory QA/ QC and not the larger issues of decisions to be made, decision error, and optimizing the plan. Had this been done, the problems of treated waste inhomogeneity, sub sampling, numbers of samples, and optimizing data collection, e. g., using composite samples, could have been incorporated into the study design. In particular, a clear statement of the decisions could have noted the importance of leaching solids up to at least pH 12.5, the regulatory limit for hazardous waste. Perhaps more important, a statement of acceptable errors should have been included, e. g., a treatment technology must be effective on 90% of wastes with a 90% confidence. Without such a statement, it is difficult to decide when a technology is good enough.

The design of leaching waste treated with mercuric selenide was not consistent with the other leaching tests and only included leaching at two pHs. As a result, the conclusion regarding the effect of chloride could not be compared with the effect of pH over a larger range.

2. Was the study conducted properly?

The lab procedures appear acceptable, although I could not find detailed sampling and sub sampling procedures. The procedures appear to have been carried out correctly.

3. Were the stated objectives adequately met?

The first review objective was to " evaluate the effectiveness of alternative treatments to obtain a goal of 0.025 mg/ L TCLP over a range of pH 2 to pH 12." I assume the reference to TCLP is a mistake, and the objective is to review the results of the constant pH extraction. With this assumption, the data collected were adequate to do the evaluation, with the exception of an apparent sample heterogeneity problem.

The second review objective was to compare constant pH protocol results to standard TCLP results. The data were adequate for this comparison, with the exception of sample heterogeneity.

The third review objective was to evaluate the effects of increased chloride concentration of mercuric selenide at constant pH conditions. These data were not adequate since only two pHs and two chloride concentrations were used; the results were inadequate to quantitatively compare the chloride effect with the pH effect.

General Questions 1. Are you aware of any other data/ studies that are relevant to the assessment of stabilized mercury bearing wastes and the behavior of these wastes in the environment?

This report does not have a list of references, so the question is very broad. A start would be the studies for EPA or used by EPA in previous rule making. Second would be a literature review using appropriate keywords.

2. With regard to the disposal of treated mercury wastes, are additional studies warranted for other factors that impact solubility ( e. g., liquid/ solid ratio, redox conditions, leachate composition) or affect ability to leach, such as use of macroencapsulation? If you believe that additional studies are needed, please explain why.

An additional study is needed to fill the holes in this report, particularly extractions up to at least pH 12.5. If the mercuric selenide process is considered a viable technology, then mercuric selenide waste should be evaluated over the range of pH 2 12.5 and with varied chloride content in the leachate. Additional studies on other factors could be done, but the priorities seem to be: pH effects ( 2 12.5), chloride effects, and redox effects.

3. Do you agree that the following statements are supported by the research results?

a) Site specific disposal conditions must be considered along with appropriate treatment technology as decisions are made about disposal of mercury wastes.

No. The study provides useful data on pH and chlorides, but it does not provide adequate support for an absolute requirement for site specific data. An alternative to using site specific conditions is a robust treatment standard which addresses the most important variables. A major implementation problem with requiring site specific conditions is the regulatory feasibility of using site specific information. For any disposal of hazardous wastes, treated or untreated, it is scientifically preferable to use site specific conditions as well as the waste properties. It is misleading, however, to pursue this path unless the regulatory system has the flexibility to implement efficiently to provide the necessary protection to public health and the environment. b) The presence of chloride ions in a given disposal environment may significantly impact the release from a treated waste form ( mercury selenide)

Yes, the data in the report do support this statement. However, there is no comparison with other variables, not even an adequate comparison with pH, which shows the relative importance of chloride concentration.

Any additional comments?

Some minor editing was needed for the final reports, i. e., spaces and placement of hyphens.

Data on the quantities of listed wastes would have been useful to understand the magnitude of various waste treatment problems.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82010-82011]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32663]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0194; FRL-8856-6]

AceInfo Solutions and Avaya Government Solutions, Koansys LLC,
and Quality Associates Inc.; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide-related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to AceInfo Solutions and its
subcontractors, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2).
AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions,
Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc. have been awarded a contract
to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable
AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions,
Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc., to fulfill the obligations of
the contract.

DATES: AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya Government
Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc., will be given
access to this information on or before December 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Steadman, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, 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?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0194. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. GS-06F-0337Z, AceInfo Solutions and its
subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality
Associates Inc., will perform system operations, software development
and maintenance, and Web site management that will require access to
potentially all data required for pesticide registration including
studies, confidential statements of formula, sites and application
methods (submitted and approved), quantities produced, and cases under
review, to potentially include enforcement actions.
    OPP has determined that access by AceInfo Solutions and its
subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality
Associates Inc., to information on all pesticide chemicals is necessary
for the performance of this contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya
Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc.,
prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the
contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party
without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each
official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect
the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in
accordance with the

FIFRA Information Security Manual. In addition, AceInfo Solutions and
its subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, and
Quality Associates Inc., are required to submit for EPA approval a
security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against
unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to
AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions,
Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc., until the requirements in
this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information
provided to AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya Government
Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc., will be maintained
by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information supplied to
AceInfo Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions,
Koansys LLC, and Quality Associates Inc., by EPA for use in connection
with this contract will be returned to EPA when AceInfo Solutions and
its subcontractors, Avaya Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, and
Quality Associates Inc., have completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: December 15, 2010.
Michael Hardy,
Acting Director, Information Technology Resource Management,
Division,Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-32663 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5077-5078]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02717]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC19-67-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 7, 2019, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation filed a request for approval to use Account 439, authorized
by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or

protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a
motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 27, 2019.

    Dated: February 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02717 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P