[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 18753-18755]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59792; File No. PCAOB-2008-06]

 Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Amendment to Board Rules Relating to Inspections

April 20, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
``Act''), notice is hereby given that on December 9, 2008, the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the Board. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.

I. Board's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule

    On December 4, 2008, the Board adopted an amendment to its rule
relating to the frequency of inspections. The proposed amendment adds a
new paragraph (f) to existing Rule 4003. The text of the proposed
amendment is set out below. Language added by the amendment is in
italics.
Rule 4003. Frequency of Inspections
* * * * *
    (f) With respect to any foreign registered public accounting firm
concerning which the preceding provisions of this Rule would set a 2008
deadline for the first Board inspection, such deadline is extended to
2009.

II. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule

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

A. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule

(a) Purpose
    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (``the Act'') directs the Board to
conduct a continuing program of inspections to assess registered public
accounting firms' compliance with certain requirements.\1\ The Act
prescribes inspection frequency requirements but also authorizes the
Board to adjust the frequency requirements by rule if the Board finds
that an adjustment is consistent with the purposes of the Act, the
public interest, and the protection of investors.\2\ Inspection
frequency requirements adopted by the Board are set out in PCAOB Rule
4003, ``Frequency of Inspections.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section 104(a) of the Act.
    \2\ See Section 104(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board began a regular cycle of inspections of U.S. firms in
2004 and has conducted 911 such inspections, including repeat
inspections of several firms. Inspections of non-U.S. firms began in
2005, and the Board has inspected 123 non-U.S. firms that have issued
audit reports while registered with the Board. Those firms are located
in 24 jurisdictions.\3\ There are, however, 21 non-U.S. firms that have
issued audit reports while registered and that Rule 4003 requires the
Board to inspect by the end of 2008, but that the Board has not yet
inspected. For the reasons described below, the Board has adopted Rule
4003(f) to extend for one year the deadline for the Board to conduct
the first inspections of non-U.S. firms that are otherwise required
before the end of 2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Board has inspected non-U.S. firms located in Argentina,
Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Hong
Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico,
New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea,
Taiwan R.O.C., and the United Kingdom.
    \4\ Existing Rule 4003 effectively sets deadlines for the
Board's inspections not only of firms that issue audit reports, but
also of firms that play a substantial role in the preparation or
furnishing of an audit report (as defined in PCAOB Rule
1001(p)(ii)). The Board has previously submitted for Commission
approval amendments to Rules 4003(b) and 4003(d) that would
eliminate from the Rule any frequency requirement or deadline for
the Board to inspect a firm that plays a substantial role but does
not issue an audit report. Unless and until the Commission approves
such a rule change, however, the one-year extension in proposed rule
4003(f) would (if approved by the Commission) apply to required 2008
PCAOB inspections of non-U.S. firms that have played a substantial
role as well as to required 2008 inspections of non-U.S. firms that
have issued audit reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCAOB has recognized since the outset of its inspection program
that inspections of non-U.S. firms pose

special issues.\5\ In its oversight of non-U.S. firms, the Board seeks,
to the extent reasonably possible, to coordinate and cooperate with
local authorities. Since 2003, when the PCAOB began operations, a
number of jurisdictions have also developed their own auditor oversight
authorities with inspection responsibilities or enhanced existing
oversight systems.\6\ The Board has a specific framework for working
cooperatively with its non-U.S. counterparts to conduct joint
inspections and, to the extent deemed appropriate by the Board in any
particular case, relying on inspection work performed by that
counterpart.\7\ The Board has previously expressed the view that it is
in the interests of the public and investors for the Board to develop
efficient and effective cooperative arrangements with its non-U.S.
counterparts.\8\ In jurisdictions that have their own inspection
programs, this may include conducting joint inspections of firms that
are subject to both regulators' authority. Even where the Board does
not work with a local regulator to conduct joint inspections, the Board
communicates with its counterpart or other local authorities (such as
securities regulators or other government agencies and ministries)
regarding its inspections to be conducted in the jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Briefing Paper, Oversight of Non-U.S. Public Accounting
Firms (October 28, 2003); Final Rules Relating to the Oversight of
Non-U.S. Public Accounting Firms, PCAOB Release No. 2004-005 (June
9, 2004) (hereinafter ``Oversight of Non-U.S. Firms'').
    \6\ In 2006, for instance, the European Union enacted a
directive requiring the creation of an effective system of public
oversight for statutory auditors and audit firms within each Member
State. See The Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council (May 17, 2006) (the ``Eighth Directive''). In addition,
among others, Canada created the Canadian Public Accountability
Board, and in Australia, the responsibilities of the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission were expanded to include
auditor oversight. In Asia, Japan created the Certified Public
Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board, South Korea gave
responsibility for auditor oversight to its Financial Supervisory
Service, and Singapore created the Accounting and Corporate
Regulatory Authority.
    \7\ See PCAOB Rules 4011 and 4012; see also Oversight of Non-
U.S. Firms at 2-3.
    \8\ See Oversight of Non-U.S. Firms at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some jurisdictions, the PCAOB's ability to conduct inspections,
either by itself or jointly with a local regulator, is complicated by
the need to address with local authorities potential legal obstacles
and sovereignty concerns. The Board seeks to work with the home-country
authorities to try to resolve potential conflicts of laws.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Oversight of Non-U.S. Firms at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, PCAOB Rule 4011 permits non-U.S. firms that are
subject to Board inspection to formally request that the Board, in
conducting its inspection, rely on a non-U.S. inspection to the extent
deemed appropriate by the Board. If a Rule 4011 request is made, Rule
4012 provides that the Board will, at an appropriate time before each
inspection of the firm, determine the degree, if any, to which the
Board may rely on the non-U.S. inspection. Rule 4012 describes aspects
of the non-U.S. system that the Board will evaluate in making that
determination.
    Where the need arises to try to resolve potential conflicts of law,
or to evaluate a non-U.S. system in response to a Rule 4011 request,
the effort can be substantial. The effort typically involves
negotiating the principles of an arrangement for cooperation consistent
with the inspection obligations that the Act imposes on the Board. It
also involves the Board gaining a detailed understanding of the other
jurisdiction's auditor oversight system in order for the Board to
determine the degree of reliance it is willing to place on inspection
work performed under that system in a particular inspection year.
    Additional effort is involved in coordinating the scheduling of
specific inspections. Where possible, the Board seeks to conduct
inspections jointly with local authorities both to take advantage of
potential efficiencies and to avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory
burdens on the firm. Like the PCAOB, several of these other authorities
proceed according to inspection frequency requirements. While some of
the Board's counterparts are established and have inspection programs,
many are new organizations still building up their inspections
resources. As a result, synchronizing the inspections schedules of
these authorities and the PCAOB's requirements may sometimes require
one-time scheduling adjustments by the PCAOB and/or the other
authority.
    Notwithstanding these challenges, the Board has so far conducted
123 non-U.S. inspections. Fifty-seven of those inspections, in five
jurisdictions, have been conducted jointly with other auditor oversight
authorities, while 66 have been conducted solely by the PCAOB.
    Because of the types of issues described above, however, the Board
faces certain challenges related to conducting, in 2008, the
inspections of 18 non-U.S. firms that have issued audit reports while
registered and that the Board is currently required to inspect by the
end of 2008.\10\ Those 18 inspections involve firms in nine
jurisdictions, several of which have newly established auditor
oversight entities that have just recently started their own
inspections programs. In some of those nine jurisdictions, the auditor
oversight authority's 2008 inspection schedules did not include some or
any of the firms the PCAOB is required to inspect in 2008. In still
other jurisdictions, local authorities have raised sovereignty concerns
or potential legal conflicts, and efforts to resolve those issues are
incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Inspections of three other non-U.S. firms that have issued
audit reports while registered and that the Board is currently
required to conduct by the end of 2008 will be delayed beyond 2008
for reasons unrelated to the issues discussed above. In October
2007, after soliciting public comment, the Board adopted and
submitted for Commission approval an amendment to Rule 4003 that
would give the Board discretion not to conduct an otherwise required
inspection of a firm if, after the firm issued the audit report that
gave rise to the inspection requirement, the firm went two
consecutive calendar years without issuing an audit report. The
three non-U.S. firms referred to here fall into that category and,
although the Commission has not acted on that proposed rule
amendment, the Board's planning for, and conduct of, 2008
inspections did not include those three firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board has made an effort to resolve issues with authorities in
the nine jurisdictions in time to conduct these inspections in
2008.\11\ The Board remains hopeful that ongoing discussions with these
authorities will result in the resolution of outstanding issues. It is
now apparent, however, that this will not occur in time to conduct
those inspections in 2008. Accordingly, the choice the Board now faces
is whether to (1) postpone these inspections while continuing
discussions on the outstanding issues or (2) proceed with inspections
by making inspection demands on the individual firms over the objection
of local authorities, including in circumstances where local
authorities take the position that a firm's cooperation in a Board
inspection would violate local law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In two of these jurisdictions, the Board was able to
arrange for and conduct some joint inspections in 2008, but, due to
scheduling conflicts, could not conduct joint inspections of all
firms with 2008 deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither option is ideal. While the Board sees value in cooperation
and joint inspections, that value must be balanced against the
statutory presumption that PCAOB-registered firms will be subject to
timely PCAOB inspections in order to protect the interests of investors
in U.S. markets. On balance, in light of the status of the ongoing
discussions with authorities in the nine jurisdictions described above,
the Board believes that a rule amendment allowing the Board to

postpone those inspections for up to one year is the appropriate
course. For that reason, the Board is adopting a new paragraph (f) to
Rule 4003, which extends for one year the deadline for the Board to
conduct the first inspection of any non-U.S. firm that existing Rule
4003 otherwise requires the Board to conduct by the end of 2008. The
Board is adopting Rule 4003(f) to take effect upon Commission approval.
    In the Board's view, this adjustment to the inspection frequency
requirement is consistent with the purposes of the Act, the public
interest, and the protection of investors. The Board believes that its
approach to implementing Rules 4011 and 4012, developing cooperative
arrangements, and conducting joint inspections with foreign regulators
is enhancing the Board's efforts to carry out its inspection
responsibilities. There is long-term value in accepting a limited delay
in inspections to continue working toward cooperative arrangements
where it appears reasonably possible to reach them. The Board
recognizes that some non-U.S. firms may be reluctant to comply with
PCAOB inspection demands because of a concern that doing so might
violate local law. Up to a point, the purposes of the Act, the public
interest, and the protection of investors are better served by delaying
a first inspection to work toward a cooperative resolution than by
precipitating legal disputes involving conflicts between U.S. and non-
U.S. law that could arise if the Board sought to enforce compliance
with its preferred schedule without regard for the concerns of non-U.S.
authorities.
    The Board will continue to work toward cooperation and coordination
with authorities in all relevant jurisdictions. The Board does not
intend, however, to make any further adjustments to the inspection
frequency requirements applicable to firms whose first inspection was
due no later than 2008.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nothing in this notice is inconsistent with the Board's
willingness to place reliance on a non-U.S. inspection consistent
with Rules 4011 and 4012, or suggests any position on the nature of
the inspection process in circumstances in which the Board relies on
a non-U.S. inspection to the maximum extent that would be consistent
with the Board's responsibilities under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule is Title I of the Act.

B. Board's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule imposes no
burden beyond the burdens clearly imposed and contemplated by the Act.

C. Board's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Received From
Members, Participants or Others

    The Board did not solicit or receive comments before adopting the
proposed rule.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period as (i) the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Board consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes are consistent with the requirements of Title I of 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/pcaob.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number PCAOB-2008-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number PCAOB-2008-06. 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/pcaob/
shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes 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 PCAOB.

    All comments received will be posted without change; we do 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 PCAOB-2008-06 and should be
submitted on or before May 15, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9367 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6624]
[FR Doc No: C1-2022-24417]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0053]
RIN 0910-AI44

Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain
Foods

Correction

    In rule document 2022-24417, appearing on pages 70910-71088, in the
issue of Monday, November, 2022, make the following formatting
correction:
    On page 71077, in the second column, in lines 29-30, should appear
as follows:
1.1320 When must I assign traceability lot codes to foods on the Food
Traceability List?

Records of Critical Tracking Events

[FR Doc. C1-2022-24417 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 18, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19614

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of US Airways, Inc. filed 11/5/2004 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between a point or points in the United States, on the one hand, via
intermediate points or directly, and Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary,
Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, on the other hand, and beyond.  US Airways
also requests that the exemption include the right to integrate this
authority with its other existing authorities.  US Airways states that
it needs the flexibility to implement services to these countries with
its own aircraft or through code-sharing as conditions warrant and that
it initially plans to offer these services through its code-share
arrangement with Lufthansa Airlines.

Applicant rep:  Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda Senese
(202) 366-2367

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, in part (i.e., authority for US Airways’ service in its
own right to Hungary and for route integration, subject to conditions,
see below)

XX  Deferred, in part (i.e, authority for US Airways’ service in its
own right to Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, see
Remarks below)

XX  Dismissed, in part (i.e., exemption request relating to services
held out by US Airways on a code-share basis on flights operated by
Lufthansa, see Remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken: February 18, 2005, through
February 18, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Hungary.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority

(See Reverse Side)

2

requested should be construed as conferring upon US Airways rights
(including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve
markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless US Airways notifies
the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until
the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures
to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such
rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the
limited-entry route rights that are included in US Airways’ authority
by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are
not then being used by US Airways, the holding of such authority by
route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for
US Airways in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine
which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The authority granted to serve intermediate points and beyond points is
limited to countries with which the United States has signed open-skies
agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to
serve under certificates and exemptions issued by the Department, and
for which it holds route integration authority by virtue of either this
present action or other action of the Department.

Remarks:  We grant the exemption authority for US Airways to operate
service in its own right between the United States and Hungary.  We
defer the request for US Airways to operate service in its own right
between the U.S. and the other countries listed, pending necessary
security clearances.  We dismiss the exemption request relating to
code-share services with Lufthansa, since by our action on a separate
application filed subsequent to that at issue here, US Airways now holds
broad exemption authority for code-sharing purposes with Lufthansa. (See
Notice of Action Taken, Docket OST-2003-15946, dated January 11, 2005).

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, deferred or dismissed, we denied all
requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the
authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

				Attachment

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										05/2004

 We note, however, in this regard, that a 30-day notice for new points
to be served by the foreign partner has not yet been filed.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16259-16260]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07796]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OW-2015-0346; FRL-9992-34-Region 8]

Proposed Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit for Wastewater Discharges Associated With
Drinking Water Production Located in the EPA Region 8 Indian Country

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
requesting comments on the draft 2019 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) drinking water general permit (DWGP) for
wastewater discharges associated with drinking water treatment plants.
The DWGP will authorize wastewater discharges from drinking water
facilities located in Indian country in the EPA Region 8 in accordance
with the terms and conditions described therein. This is the first
issuance of the DWGP. EPA proposes to issue the permit for five (5)
years and is seeking comment on the draft permit.

DATES: Comments must be received, in writing, on or before 30 days
after the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OW-2015-0346, by the following method: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received. Do not
submit information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Wastewater Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Garrison, Wastewater Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8WP-CWW, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drinking Water General Permit (DWGP) contains requirements
similar to an individual permit and will authorize the discharge of
process wastewater in accordance with the terms and conditions
described therein. The fact sheet for the permit is provided for
download concurrently with the permit and provides detailed information
on the methodology used to develop effluent limitations, the specific
geographic areas covered by the permits, monitoring schedules,
inspection requirements, and other regulatory decisions or requirements
in the permit.

II. Summary of Permit Coverage

    The DWGP (DWG589XXX) provides coverage for drinking water treatment
facilities in EPA Region 8 that discharge process wastewater to waters
of the United States in Indian Country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
1151. A full description of the geographic scope of coverage is
included in the public notice version of the permit.
    The DWGP provides coverage for discharges of treated wastewater
from drinking water treatment processes. Process flows contributing to
the discharge include: Filter backwash, filter to waste, decanted lime
sludge dewatering, influent screen backwash and/or miscellaneous
wastewater sources associated with drinking water facility operation.
Miscellaneous wastewater sources may include, but are not limited to:
Processed potable water, disinfection of treatment plant pipelines and
tanks, and overflow from holding tanks of treated water.
    The EPA has identified drinking water treatment processes methods
that do not qualify for coverage under the DWGP. The processes
wastewaters not included in this general permit include: Batch
regenerated potassium permanganate iron removal, sodium zeolite
softening, nano filtration and reverse osmosis.
    The DWGP contains two sets of effluent limitations: Primary
effluent limitations that apply to all discharges, and supplemental
effluent limitations that will apply to discharges on an individual
basis as necessary to protect water quality. The effluent limitations
were derived from technology based and water quality based effluent
limitations as described in the fact sheet. The EPA will review a
facility's Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the DWGP and
determine the need for implementation of the supplemental effluent
limitations and corresponding self-monitoring requirements. The
permittee will be notified of the applicable effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements in the notification of coverage.
    The following Tribes in EPA Region 8 have Clean Water Act Sec.
401(a)(1) certification authority: The Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, the
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. The EPA has
requested certification from each of these Tribes that the DWGP
complies with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act and
their respective tribal water quality standards.

III. Other Legal Requirements

    Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866): The EPA Office of Policy
has determined that the issuance of these general permits is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) and is therefore not subject to
formal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review prior to proposal.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed
on

regulated facilities in these proposed general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 501, et seq. The information
collection requirements of these permits have already been approved by
the OMB in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, generally requires federal
agencies to assess the effects of their ``regulatory actions'' defined
to be the same as ``rules'' subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) on tribal, state, local governments and the private sector. Since
the permit proposed is an adjudication, it is not subject to the RFA
and is therefore not subject to the requirements of the UMRA.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

    Dated: April 12, 2019.
Darcy O'Connor,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Water Protection.
[FR Doc. 2019-07796 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17026-17027]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 522 and 558

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0003]

New Animal Drugs; Arsanilate Sodium; Sulfaethoxypyridazine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to remove sections pertaining to use of arsanilate
sodium and sulfaethoxypyridazine in medicated feed because there are no
currently approved new animal drug applications (NADAs) for such uses.
Conforming amendments are also being made. This action is being taken
to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George K. Haibel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA has determined the animal drug
regulations describe conditions of use for arsanilate sodium and
sulfaethoxypyridazine in medicated feed for which no NADA is currently
approved.
    1. Arsanilate sodium Sec.  558.60 (21 CFR 558.60). In the Federal
Register of December 18, 1986 (51 FR 45346), FDA proposed to remove
Sec.  558.20 Drugs used in medicated feeds in use before January 1,
1958, which are not otherwise listed; interim listing (21 CFR 558.20)
because this section in part 558 subpart A--General Provisions did not
provide an appropriate basis upon which to approve medicated feed
applications and because several of the drugs listed were not the
subject of approved NADAs. Among other exceptions, FDA proposed to
transfer the arsanilate sodium provisions of Sec.  558.20 to Sec.
558.60 in subpart B--Specific New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds
(subpart B) to reflect their status as approved conditions of use.
    In 1991, FDA issued a final rule removing most of Sec.  558.20 (56
FR 19263, April 26, 1991) and codifying approved uses in subpart B.
Elsewhere in the same issue of the Federal Register, FDA reproposed the
removal of the remaining portions of Sec.  558.20 that pertained to
certain uses of arsanilate sodium (56 FR 19332, April 26, 1991). FDA
reproposed those portions of the rule because it recognized that some
of the uses it had proposed to codify in subpart B did not appear to be
the subject of approved NADAs, as previously stated. In the discussion
of the reproposed changes, FDA tentatively concluded that NADA 8-966
for arsanilate sodium for use in swine feed was voluntarily withdrawn
by a letter dated November 12, 1973. The Agency acknowledged this
withdrawal by a letter dated January 16, 1974 (see 56 FR 19332 at
19333, Refs. 1 and 2).
    In 1992, FDA issued a final rule removing the remaining portions of
Sec.  558.20 (57 FR 1641, January 15, 1992) and noted that no evidence
or comments were received on the 1991 reproposed rule, which had
requested that anyone claiming to hold an approved NADA for arsanilate
sodium in swine feed submit evidence to substantiate the approval. FDA
concluded that NADA 8-966 providing for use of arsanilate sodium in
medicated feeds for swine was voluntarily withdrawn at the request of
the sponsor (see 56 FR 19332 and Refs. 1 and 2 of the reproposal).
    After careful review of its NADA records, FDA has concluded that
all uses of arsanilate sodium in medicated feeds in NADA 8-966 were
voluntarily withdrawn by the sponsor in 1973 and that there is no
currently approved NADA providing for the use of arsanilate sodium in
medicated feed or in any dosage form. Accordingly, the animal drug
regulations in part 558 (21 CFR part 558) are amended by removing Sec.
558.60. Conforming amendments are also being made in Sec. Sec.  558.55
and 558.680 by removing reference to use in combination with amprolium
and zoalene, respectively. This action is being taken to comply with
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and to improve the
accuracy of the regulations.
    2. Sulfaethoxypyridazine (Sec. Sec.  558.579). In 1966, FDA
approved a food additive petition and codified the safe use of
sulfaethoxypyridazine in feed and drinking water of swine at Sec.
121.280 (21 CFR 121.280) (31 FR 2425 at 2426, February 5, 1966). In
1968, Sec.  121.280 was amended to add use in cattle in feed and water,
and by tablet and injection, and to make all uses, including use in
feed restriction to ``for sale by or on the order of a licensed
veterinarian'' (33 FR 627 at 628, January 18, 1968). A 1969 amendment
revised that use restriction to read ``for use by or on the order of a
licensed veterinarian'' (34 FR 20272, December 25, 1969).
    In a 1976 reorganization of certain food additive regulations from
21 CFR part 121 to new part 558 New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal
Feed, Sec.  121.280 was redesignated as Sec.  558.579 (41 FR 10983 at
11005, March 15, 1976). In the intervening 35 years there have been no
required annual drug experience reports, or any product stability
reports, submitted for any NADA for use of sulfaethoxypyridazine in
medicated feed. At this time and after careful review of its NADA
records, FDA has concluded that that there is no approved NADA for the
use of sulfaethoxypyridazine in medicated feed for swine or cattle.
Accordingly, the animal drug regulations in part 558 are amended by
removing Sec.  558.579. A conforming amendment is also being made in 21
CFR 522.2240 to remove a provision for administration of
sulfaethoxypyridazine injectable solution followed by use of
sulfaethoxypyridazine medicated cattle feed. This action is being taken
to comply with the FD&C Act and to improve the accuracy of the
regulations.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''

Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 522

    Animal drugs.

21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 522 and
558 are amended as follows:

PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. In Sec.  522.2240 revise paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  522.2240  Sulfaethoxypyridazine.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Limitations. Administer intravenously for not more than 4 days;
or first treatment may be followed by 3 days of treatment with
sulfaethoxypyridazine in drinking water or tablets in accordance with
Sec. Sec.  520.2240a(e) and 520.2240b(e) of this chapter; as sodium
sulfaethoxypyridazine; do not treat within 16 days of slaughter; as
sole source of sulfonamide; milk that has been taken from animals
during treatment and for 72 hours (6 milkings) after the latest
treatment must not be used for food. Federal law restricts this drug to
use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.

Sec.  558.4  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  558.4, in paragraph (d), in the ``Category II'' table,
remove the entries for ``Arsanilate sodium'' and
``Sulfaethoxypyridazine''.

Sec.  558.55  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  558.55, in the tables in paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii),
and (d)(2)(iv), remove the entries for ``Arsanilate sodium 90
(0.01%)''.

Sec.  558.60  [Removed]

0
6. Remove Sec.  558.60.

Sec.  558.579  [Removed]

0
7. Remove Sec.  558.579.

Sec.  558.680  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  558.680, in the tables in paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii),
and (d)(1)(iii), remove the entries for ``Arsanilate sodium 90
(0.01%)''.

    Dated: March 23, 2011.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2011-7214 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10566-10567]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03480]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2020-0438; FRL -10015-40-OECA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Annual
Public Water Systems Compliance Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Annual Public Water System
Compliance Report'' (EPA ICR No. 1812.07, OMB Control No. 2020-0020) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2021. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2020-0438 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raquel Taveras, Monitoring, Assistance
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, MC-2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Section 1414(c)(3)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) requires that each state (a term that includes states,
commonwealths, tribes and territories) that has primary enforcement
authority under the SDWA shall prepare, make readily available to the
public, and submit to the Administrator of EPA, an annual report of
violations of national primary drinking water regulations in the state.
These Annual State Public Water System Compliance Reports are to
include violations of maximum contaminant levels, treatment
requirements, variances and exemptions, and monitoring requirements
determined to be significant by the Administrator after consultation
with the states. To minimize a state's burden in preparing its annual
statutorily required report, EPA issued guidance that explains what
Section 1414(c)(3)(A) requires and provides model language and
reporting templates. EPA also annually makes available to the states a
computer query that generates for each state (from information states
are already separately required to submit to EPA's national database on
a quarterly basis) the required violations information in a table
consistent with the reporting template in EPA's guidance.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities that are potentially
affected by this action are States that have primacy enforcement
authority and meet the definition of ``state'' under the SDWA.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under Section 1414
(c)(3)(A) of SDWA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 55 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 4,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $530,000(per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the most
recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations. First, the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years. Second, the growth
rate for this industry is very low or non-existent, so there is no
significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in
the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry
growth, there are also no changes in the capital/startup or operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs. There is a slight increase in costs, which
is wholly due to the use of updated labor rates. This ICR uses labor
rates from the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report (September
2020) to calculate respondent burden costs.

John Dombrowski,
Deputy Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-03480 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6337-6338]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0010; FRL-9111-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Control of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Basic Oxygen
Furnaces

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maryland for the purpose of
replacing the existing requirements for the control of carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions from basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs) at steel mills with a
new CO standard for BOFs at steel mills. In the Final Rules section of
this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by March 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-0010 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0010, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information on this SIP
revision, which replaces the existing requirements for CO emissions
from BOFs at steel mills with a new regulation that establishes a new,
equivalent CO standard for BOFs in steel mills in Maryland, please see
the information provided in the direct final action, with the same
title, that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication.

    Dated: January 22, 2010.
 W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-2676 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 186)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49338-49341]
[DOCID:fr28se09-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 599

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0120]
RIN 2127-AK61

Requirements and Procedures for Consumer Assistance To Recycle
and Save Program

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the regulation implementing the
Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program, published on
July 29, 2009 in the Federal Register, under the CARS Act. The rule
adds an exception process for registered dealers who were prevented
from submitting an application for reimbursement for a qualifying
transaction prior to the announced August 25, 2009 deadline due to
problems associated with the CARS electronic transaction system.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 28, 2009. A request for
an exception must be postmarked no later than October 13, 2009.

ADDRESSES: A request for exception must be made in writing and mailed
by United States mail to the NHTSA Administrator, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions, you may call David
Bonelli, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This final rule amends the regulation implementing the Consumer
Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Program, published on July 29,
2009 (74 FR 37878), with a previous amendment published on August 5,
2009 (74 FR 38974), under the CARS Act (Pub. L. 111-32). The rule adds
an exception process for registered dealers who were unable to submit
an application for reimbursement for a qualifying transaction prior to
August 25, 2009, 8 pm EDT, NHTSA's announced deadline for the program.
As detailed below, this exception process is available only where the
delay is attributable to action or inaction by NHTSA.
    Due to the enormous popularity of the CARS program, the available
Federal funds were depleted in a short period of time. Based on daily
projections of transactions, NHTSA determined that it was necessary to
declare an August 24, 2009, 8 pm EDT deadline for completing CARS deals
and an August 25, 2009, 8 pm EDT deadline for submitting applications
for reimbursement. The agency received an overwhelming number of
inquiries to the CARS hotline from dealers and consumers during the
course of the program, and especially during the days immediately prior
to the announced deadline. From these inquiries, we learned that
dealers encountered problems in submitting applications for
reimbursement as a result of problems caused by the agency's
transaction system. Because the agency was unable to respond to and
resolve some of these problems prior to the application deadline, some
dealers who had made qualifying CARS deals and extended credits to
consumers in accordance with the provisions of the rule were prevented
from completing and submitting applications for reimbursement.
    We are aware that some of these difficulties arose because of a
feature that automatically locks a dealer out of the CARS transaction
system and prevents the dealer from being able to re-enter the system
without the agency's assistance. This occurred, for example, when a
dealer inaccurately entered its account password into the system
multiple times. Ordinarily, the dealer's password could be reset
through a simple telephone call to the agency for technical assistance.
However, due to the volume of transactions and inquiries, some dealers
may have been unsuccessful in their attempts to get their passwords
reset prior to the deadline.
    We are aware also that some dealers were unable to submit an
electronic application because of an automatic feature that precluded a
submission with a State identification number, a trade-in vehicle's
vehicle identification number (VIN), or a new vehicle's VIN

that was previously entered into a draft application in the CARS
system. This feature was designed to detect multiple transactions with
the same persons or vehicles, errors, and attempted fraud. However, the
application of this feature also blocks transactions where the draft
application with the same State identification number or VIN was
entered, but never submitted as part of a completed application. This
might occur, for example, where a dealer enters a purchaser's State
identification number, trade-in vehicle's VIN, and/or new vehicle's VIN
as part of an application, but the deal is never completed between the
parties. If the same or another dealer attempts to enter this same
purchaser or vehicle information as part of another transaction, the
system automatically rejects the application even if the purchaser, the
trade-in vehicle, and the new vehicle have never been part of a
completed CARS deal.
    On most occasions where such problems occurred, a dealer was able
to contact NHTSA officials to resolve the issue. However, due to the
overwhelming number of transactions and inquiries that occurred as the
application deadline approached, the agency was unable to respond to
and resolve all dealer inquiries. As a result, some dealers may have
been prevented from submitting an application for reimbursement,
despite having made a qualifying CARS deal, where the dealer took
ownership of the trade-in vehicle and transferred ownership and
possession of the new vehicle to the purchaser.
    Today's final rule establishes an exception process by which a
dealer may apply for reimbursement of a CARS credit if it had made a
binding CARS deal prior to the application deadline but was prevented
from submitting an application for reimbursement prior to the deadline
due to a hardship caused by the agency. This exception process is
available only to dealers, and not to consumers, as the CARS Act
authorizes payment only to dealers. However, the process also benefits
consumers, by enabling a dealer to seek reimbursement from the agency
for a legitimate transaction rather than seeking return of the vehicle
or repayment of the credit from the consumer.

Exception Process

    To qualify for the exception process, a dealer must have been
prevented from submitting an application for reimbursement due to a
hardship caused by the agency. Specifically, a dealer may request an
exception if the dealer was locked out of the CARS system, contacted
NHTSA for a password reset prior to the announced deadline, but did not
receive a password reset. A dealer also may request an exception if its
timely transaction was rejected by the CARS system due to a duplicate
State identification number, trade-in vehicle VIN, or new vehicle VIN
that was never used for a submitted CARS transaction, if the dealer
contacted NHTSA prior to the announced deadline to resolve the issue
but did not receive a resolution. Finally, a dealer may seek an
exception if it was prevented from submitting a transaction by the
announced deadline due to another hardship attributable to NHTSA's
action or inaction, upon submission of proof and justification
satisfactory to the Administrator.
    A request for an exception will not be granted if the dealer did
not complete a qualifying vehicle sale/lease and trade-in vehicle
transaction meeting the existing requirements of Sec.  599.300 and
Sec.  599.301 prior to the August 24th deadline. A qualifying
transaction requires that the dealer took ownership and possession of
the trade-in vehicle and delivered ownership and possession of the new
vehicle to the purchaser. A request for an exception also will not be
granted if a dealer's inability to complete or submit an application
was due to a reason other than action or inaction by NHTSA, such as
technological difficulties in the dealer's own systems or processes.
The exception process is not available for transactions that were
successfully submitted on the CARS system but were subsequently
rejected, as dealers have the opportunity to correct and resubmit their
applications following rejection. The agency informed dealers on
several occasions that any applications created in the system must be
submitted, even if in incomplete form, prior to the application
deadline, and the agency also informed the dealers that they would have
the opportunity to correct any incomplete applications after the
application deadline.
    A dealer seeking an exception must describe in a written statement
the basis for the exception and provide evidence that it was prevented
from submitting an application by the deadline due to action or
inaction by NHTSA. Such evidence may include copies of correspondence,
such as electronic mail, documenting that the dealer contacted the
agency regarding issues with its application. The dealer also must
present proof that a qualifying deal was made on or after July 1, 2009,
but not later than August 25, 2009, 8 pm EDT, by submitting paper
copies of all completed and signed supporting documents and
certifications required under Sec.  599.302(c)(2) and (c)(3) of the
rule.
    All decisions granting or denying a request for exception will be
made by the NHTSA Administrator or his or her designee. Finally, in
order to bring finality to the CARS accounting process, all requests
for exception must be postmarked no later than October 13, 2009.

Statutory Basis for This Action

    This final rule makes amendments to implement the Consumer
Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS Act) (Pub. L. 111-32), which
directs the Secretary to issue final regulations.

APA Requirements and Effective Date

    The rule is being issued without first providing a notice and an
opportunity for public comment. Section 1302(d) of the CARS Act
provides that ``notwithstanding'' the requirements of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, the Secretary shall promulgate final
regulations to implement the Program not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act. Due to the enormous success and
popularity of the CARS program, the agency closed the program and
issued an August 25, 2009, 8 p.m. EDT deadline for submission of
applications for reimbursement. However, the agency is aware that there
are completed valid transactions for which dealers were unable to
submit applications prior to the deadline. In order to ensure that
dealers and consumers do not unwind these transactions because dealers
were not reimbursed, the agency believes that it is important to
promulgate an exception process for the final rule immediately.
Therefore, the agency finds for good cause that providing notice and
comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for these
changes to the final rule. Drafting and issuing a proposed rule,
providing a period for public comment, and addressing those comments in
the final rule would be highly impracticable in the time available and
would substantially inhibit the ability to make payment for granted
exception requests.
    For the above-mentioned reasons, the agency also finds that it has
good cause to make this rule effective fewer than 30 days after the
publication in the Federal Register.
    We believe it is necessary to provide these amendments immediately
to ensure that payment for valid transactions submitted under the
exception process permitted under this rule can be made. We also note
that this rule relieves restrictions in the original

final rule by permitting additional submissions of applications for
reimbursement. It would, therefore, be inconsistent with Congressional
intent, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest to delay the
effective date of the regulation, which would, in turn, adversely
affect payment for valid transactions.
    Accordingly, the effective date of this final rule is September 28,
2009.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Because of the public and Congressional interest in the CARS
program, this rulemaking is considered significant under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. It was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The agency has discussed the relevant requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the National Environmental Policy Act,
and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in the July 29, 2009 final rule
cited above. This rule does not change the finding in those analyses.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. As part of this final rule, the agency must request
information from participating dealers that encountered problems in
submitting applications for CARS transaction reimbursement prior to the
announced August 25, 2009 deadline due to action or inaction by NHTSA.
Today's collection of information amends a previously approved
collection, OMB Control No. 2127-0660, to address an exemption process
by which a dealer may apply for reimbursement of a CARS credit if it
had made a binding CARS deal prior to the application deadline but was
prevented from submitting the application due to a hardship caused by
the agency.
    The agency has received approval from OMB to amend the following
collection of information:
    Title: CARS Program; Dealer and Buyer Transaction Information.
    OMB Control No.: 2127-0660.
    Expiration date: January 31, 2010.
    NHTSA has been given OMB approval to collect an additional 2,000
responses, for a total of 1,000 additional burden hours. The total
number of responses under this collection is 1,352,000, for a total of
372,350 burden hours.

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov
at http://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 599

    Fuel Economy, Motor vehicle safety.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby amends 49 CFR part 599
as set forth below.

PART 599--REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO
RECYCLE AND SAVE ACT PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 599 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901, Notes; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50.

0
2. Add Subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F--Requirements and Procedures for Exceptions
Sec.
599.600 Exceptions--applicability and requirements.
599.601 Procedures for requesting exception.
599.603 Disposition of requests for exception.

Subpart F--Requirements and Procedures for Exceptions

Sec.  599.600  Exceptions--applicability and requirements.

    (a) Applicability. (1) Eligible Requesters. To qualify for an
exception under this subpart, a requester must be a dealer registered
in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  599.200.
    (2) Filing deadline. A request for an exception must be postmarked
no later than October 13, 2009.
    (3) Availability of funds. An exception shall be approved under
this subpart only if Federal funds are available for payment.
    (4) Exclusion. No exception may be approved for an application for
reimbursement that was successfully submitted to the CARS system.
    (b) Threshold requirements. Subject to the requirements of Sec.
599.600(a), a registered dealer may submit a request for exception and
seek reimbursement of a CARS credit under this subpart if the dealer:
    (1) Prior to August 24, 2009, 8 pm EDT, completed a qualifying deal
meeting the requirements of Sec.  599.300 and Sec.  599.301;
    (2) Took ownership and possession of a trade-in vehicle and
transferred ownership and possession of a new vehicle to the purchaser;
and
    (3) Prior to August 25, 2009, 8 pm EDT, attempted to submit an
application for reimbursement meeting the requirements of Sec.
599.302, but was prevented from submitting the application for any of
the reasons identified in Sec.  599.600(c).
    (c) Exception cases. A dealer is eligible for an exception if:
    (1) Password rejection. The dealer's account password was locked
out and not reset by NHTSA;
    (2) Transaction rejection. The application was rejected at
submission because the dealer entered a State identification number, a
trade-in vehicle VIN, or a new vehicle VIN that was already entered
into the CARS program system, but that State identification number,
trade-in vehicle VIN, or new vehicle VIN was never used for a CARS
deal; or
    (3) Other hardship. The dealer experienced any other hardship
attributable to NHTSA action or inaction that the Administrator
determines in his or her discretion should be redressed, consistent
with the purposes of the CARS Act.

Sec.  599.601  Procedures for requesting exception.

    (a) Submission. A request for exception must be made in writing and
mailed by United States mail to the NHTSA Administrator, 1200 New
Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Contents. The request must include paper copies of the
following materials:
    (1) Explanation of hardship. A written explanation of a hardship
identified in Sec.  599.600(c) that prevented the dealer from
submitting its transaction, and the steps the dealer took to contact
the agency and timely resolve the issue;
    (2) Proof of hardship. Documents evidencing that the dealer was
unable to complete and submit an application for

reimbursement prior to the deadline because of hardship caused by
NHTSA. Documents may include copies of correspondence with the agency;
    (3) Documentation of qualifying transaction. Paper copies of all
supporting attachments required by Sec.  599.302(c)(2) which reveal
that a qualifying CARS transaction, including the transfer of ownership
and possession of the trade-in vehicle to the dealer and the delivery
of ownership and possession of the new vehicle to the purchaser, was
made prior to August 24, 2009, 8 p.m. EDT; and
    (4) Certifications. Paper copies of all certifications provided in
Appendix A to this part, signed by both the dealer and the purchaser.
    (5) Evidence of prior notice to NHTSA. Evidence, if any, that the
dealer attempted to contact NHTSA prior to August 25, 2009, 8 p.m. EDT,
to request assistance with a problem described in Sec.  599.600(c).

Sec.  599.603  Disposition of requests for exception.

    (a) In general. Upon receipt of the request for exception, the
agency will review the request to determine whether the exception
should be granted and approved for payment.
    (b) Deciding official. The NHTSA Administrator or his or her
designee shall serve as the Deciding Official for all determinations
under this subpart.
    (c) Incomplete requests. A request for exception that fails to
include all of the documents required under this subpart may be
rejected without further review.
    (d) Denied requests. If the Deciding Official denies the request,
the requester will be informed in writing of the reasons for the denial
of the request.
    (e) Granted requests. If the Deciding Official grants the request,
the requester will be notified by electronic mail, at the e-mail
address identified in Sec.  599.200(c)(2)(iii), and the requester's
application for reimbursement will be processed for payment by the
agency as a qualifying transaction in accordance with Sec.  599.304.
    (f) No appeals. There are no appeals from the Deciding Official's
decision.

    Issued on: September 23, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-23335 Filed 9-23-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78799-78800]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Compatibility Program Notice, Fort Worth Alliance Airport,
Fort Worth, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the city of
Fort Worth, Texas under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'')
and 14 CFR Part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the
description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report
No. 96-52 (1980). On September 7, 2006, the FAA determined that the
noise exposure maps submitted by the city of Fort Worth, Texas under
Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. Subsequent to
this determination, the future condition noise exposure map was revised
to reflect additional military operations proposed by the Department of
Defense. This revision delayed acceptance of the future condition noise
exposure map until May 5, 2009. On December 1, 2010, the FAA approved
the Fort Worth Alliance Airport noise compatibility program. Most of
the recommendations of the program were approved. No program elements
relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise abatement were
proposed by the city of Fort Worth.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Fort Worth Alliance Airport noise compatibility program is December 1,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Mr. Paul
Blackford, ASW-652B, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same
location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for Fort Worth
Alliance Airport, effective December 1, 2010.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 is a local program,
not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Regional Office in Fort Worth, Texas.
    The city of Fort Worth submitted to the FAA on July 30, 2010, the
noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced
during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from August 9,
2005 through July 30, 2010. The final Fort Worth Alliance Airport noise
exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with
applicable requirements on May 5, 2009. Notice of this determination
was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2009.
    The Fort Worth Alliance Airport study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from
July 30, 2010, to the year 2014. It was requested that the FAA evaluate
and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described
in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on
July 30, 2010 and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or
disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or
modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be
an approval of such program.
    The submitted program contained two proposed actions for noise
mitigation off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined
that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR
Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was
approved by the FAA effective December 1, 2010.
    Outright approval was granted for all of the specific program
elements. Approved action items include remedial land use mitigation
measures consisting of land acquisition and a sound insulation program.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Southwest Region, Airports Division Manager on
December 1, 2010. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation
materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for
review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices
of the city of Fort Worth. The Record of Approval also will be
available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, December 3, 2010.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-31510 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 20399]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08767]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-408, OMB Control No. 3235-0464]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 101.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 101
of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.101), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 101 prohibits distribution participants from purchasing
activities at specified times during a distribution of securities.
Persons otherwise covered by this rule may seek to use several
applicable exceptions such as a calculation of the average daily
trading volume of the securities in distribution, the maintenance of
policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates, and
the maintenance of a written policy regarding general compliance with
Regulation M for de minimus transactions.
    There are approximately 1550 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 30,218 hours to comply with this rule. Each
respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes on
average approximately 19.495 hours to complete. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is 30,218 burden hours. The total estimated
internal labor compliance cost for the respondents is approximately
$1,964,170.00, resulting in an internal cost of compliance for each
respondent per response of approximately $1267.21 (i.e., $1,964,170.00/
1550 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 25, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08767 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51483]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0354]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Venice, FL

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Venice Avenue Bridge, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 56.6, Venice, FL. This temporary operating
schedule will allow the bridge to not open to navigation including tugs
with tows, during the Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon scheduled for the
second Sunday of November, for the safety of the participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. November 8,
2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0354] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Danielle Mauser, Bridge
Transportation Assistant, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions about viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to accommodate the annual Sarasota
Iron Man Triathlon, a temporary schedule deviation has been authorized
for the Venice Avenue Bridge, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
mile 56.6 in Venice, FL. This deviation is in effect from 7 a.m. to 10
a.m. on November 8, 2014. During this time, the bridge shall remain
closed to navigation, including tugs with tows. Currently, the bridge
opens as required per 33 CFR 117.287 (a-2), which states ``the draw of
the Venice Avenue bridge, shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. The draw
need open only at 10 minutes after the hour, 30 minutes after the hour
and 50 minutes after the hour, except between 4:35 p.m. and 5:35 p.m.''
The regulation changes may have a minor impact on vessels transiting
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, FL, but will
still meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
    The Venice Avenue Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of
90 feet. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position
may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies.
Also, vessels capable of using the Gulf of Mexico as an alternate route
may do so in lieu of transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at mile
56.6 in Venice, FL from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. November 8, 2014. The Coast
Guard will inform users of the waterways through Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessels can arrange transits to minimize any impact caused by
the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately following the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
normal operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 15, 2014.
Barry Dragon,
Director, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-20539 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63978]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25264]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL--9901-99-Region2]

Proposed CERCLA Settlements Relating to the Truckers Warehouse
Site in Passaic, Passaic County, New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative settlements and opportunity
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 2, of three proposed Administrative
Settlement Agreements for Recovery of Past Response Costs
(``Agreements'') pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, with (1) RJS
Corp.; (2) Your Factory Warehouse, Inc., Douglas Marino and Mark
Marino; and (3) A&S Corporation and Marie Andre (``Settling Parties'').
The Settling Parties are potentially responsible parties, pursuant to
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, and thus are potentially liable for response
costs incurred at or in connection with the Truckers Warehouse Site
(``Site''), located in Passaic, Passaic County, New Jersey. Under the
Agreements, the Settling Parties agree to pay a total of $108,748.20 to
EPA for past response costs. EPA will consider all comments received
and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Agreements if comments
received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the
proposed Agreements are inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's
response to any comments received will be available for public
inspection at EPA Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York
10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be provided by November 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Agreements are available for public inspection at EPA
Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Comments should reference the Truckers Warehouse Site, located in
Passaic, Passaic County, New Jersey, Index Nos. CERCLA-02-2013-2019,
02-2013-2028 and 02-2013-2029. To request a copy of the Agreements,
please contact the EPA employee identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard Burke, Assistant Regional
Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 24, 2013.
Walter E. Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-25264 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64185-64186]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-8-000]

Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Central Valley Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lea County
Electric Cooperative, Inc., Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative,
Inc., West Texas Municipal Power Agency (Complainants) v. Southwestern
Public Service Company (Respondent); Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 20, 2014, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 201, 206, and 306 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824, 824(e), and 825(e), Golden Spread
Electric Cooperative, Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lea County Electric Cooperative,
Inc., Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, Inc., and West Texas
Municipal Power Agency (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal
complaint against Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS or
Respondent), alleging that the production formula rate of each of their
respective Replacement Power Sales Agreements with SPC and that the
open access transmission tariff formula rate applicable to pricing of
transmission service over the facilities of SPS contain an unjust and
unreasonable rate of return of common equity. In addition, the
Complainants request that this proceeding be consolidated with Docket
Nos. EL13-78-000 and EL12-59-000.
    The Complainants certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for SPS as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    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. The Respondent's answer and all
interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be
served on the Complainants.
    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 electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 30, 2014.

    Dated: October 21, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25542 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P