[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10630]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4842]

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

Part III

Department of Labor

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 /
Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0038]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

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

ACTION: Reopening of the record and extension of the nominations
deadline.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is reopening the record and extending the deadline for
submitting nominations for membership on the Federal Advisory Council
on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) until March 31, 2010.

DATES: Nominations for FACOSH must be submitted (postmarked, sent,
transmitted, received) by March 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations for FACOSH, identified by Docket
No. OSHA-2009-0038, by any one of the following methods:
    Electronically: Nominations, including attachments, may be
submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting
nominations;
    Facsimile: If the nomination, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648;
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: Submit three copies of nominations to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-2009-0038, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2350 (TTY number<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries (hand, express mail,
messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of
Labor's and OSHA Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45
p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All nominations for FACOSH must include the agency
name and docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No.
OSHA-2009-0038). Because of security-related procedures, submitting
nominations by regular mail may result in a significant delay in their
receipt. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office, at the address above,
for information about security procedures for submitting nominations by
hand delivery, express delivery, and messenger or courier service. For
additional information on submitting nominations, see 74 FR 66151.
    Submissions in response to this Federal Register notice, including
personal information provided, will be posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birth dates.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as OSHA's
December 14, 2009 notice requesting nominations for FACOSH membership
are available at http://www.regulations.gov. Both notices, as well as
news releases and other relevant information, are also available on
OSHA's webpage at http://www.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For press inquiries: Ms. Jennifer
Ashley, OSHA, Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room
N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-1999.
    For general information: Mr. Francis Yebesi, OSHA, Office of
Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3622, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2122; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OSHA is reopening the record and extending the deadline for
submitting nominations for membership on FACOSH until March 31, 2010.
OSHA is extending the FACOSH nominations deadline because of weather-
related Federal government closures during the week preceding the
deadline. For instructions and information about submitting
nominations, see 74 FR 66151.
    On December 14, 2009, OSHA published a Federal Register notice
inviting interested parties to submit nominations for FACOSH membership
by February 12, 2010 (74 FR 66151). OSHA requested nominations to fill
10 vacancies on FACOSH, five labor and five management members. Five
vacancies occurred during CY 2009 and five vacancies will occur in CY
2010. The Secretary of Labor will appoint new members to two-year or
three-year terms depending on whether the member will be filling a CY
2009 or CY 2010 vacancy.
    FACOSH is authorized to advise the Secretary of Labor on all
matters relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal
employees (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 688),
5 U.S.C. 7902, Executive Order 13446). This includes providing advice
on how to reduce and keep at a minimum the number of injuries and
illnesses in the Federal workforce and how to encourage the
establishment and maintenance of effective occupational safety and
health programs in each Federal department and agency.
    Authority and Signature: David Michaels, PhD MPH, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the
preparation of this notice under the authority granted by section 19 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5
U.S.C. 7902, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App),
Executive Order 13511, 29 CFR part 1960 (Basic Program Elements of for
Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs), 41 CFR part
102-3, and Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this March 2, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-4842 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21752-21754]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08219]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1074; Product Identifier 2019-NM-191-AD; Amendment
39-19900; AD 2020-07-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer
S.A.) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model
ERJ-170 airplanes and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 ECJ, -100
IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a determination that certain main landing gear (MLG) aft pintle pins
repaired using a sulphamate nickel plating have a life limit that is
less than the certified life limit. This AD requires a one-time records
review or a general visual inspection (GVI) of the MLG aft pintle pins
to determine if certain repairs were done, and replacement of certain
MLG aft pintle pins with serviceable MLG aft pintle pins, as specified
in an Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC)
Brazilian AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 26, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 26,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD
contact National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products
Certification Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, n[deg] 209, Jardim
Esplanada, CEP 12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP,
Brazil; telephone 55 (12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this IBR material on the ANAC website
at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-1074.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
1074; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
Brazilian AD 2019-11-07, effective November 18, 2019 (``Brazilian AD
2019-11-07'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica
S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes;
Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -200 STD, and -200 LL airplanes; and
Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 ECJ, -100 IGW, -100 SR, -200 STD,
-200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. Model ERJ 190-100 SR airplanes are not
certified by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate
data sheet; this AD, therefore, does not include those airplanes in the
applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Yabor[atilde]
Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100
STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes; Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -
200 STD, and -200 LL airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -
100 ECJ, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2020 (85 FR 2909). The
NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain MLG aft pintle pins
repaired using a sulphamate

nickel plating have a life limit that is less than the certified life
limit. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time records review and a GVI
of the MLG aft pintle pins to determine if certain repairs were done,
and replacement of certain MLG aft pintle pins with serviceable MLG aft
pintle pins, as specified in a Brazilian AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the affected MLG
aft pintle pins before reaching the certified life limit, which could
result in collapse of the MLG during takeoff or landing. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Explanation of Change to Manufacturer's Name

    The FAA revised references to the manufacturer's name throughout
this final rule to identify the manufacturer's name published in the
most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed
support for the NPRM.

Request To Allow Review of Maintenance Records

    Horizon Air requested that the final rule provide the option for
operators to perform a records review or physical inspection and only
mandate a physical inspection of the part if the repair history of the
pintle pin cannot conclusively be determined from the records review.
The commenter noted that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD proposed
to require both a one-time records review and a general visual
inspection of the MLG aft pintle pins to determine if certain repairs
were done. The commenter explained that as a life limited part,
documentation is required by the FAA, therefore a review of airplane
maintenance records should be acceptable in lieu of this inspection if
the part status can be conclusively determined from that review.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has revised
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to allow operators to do a review of
airplane maintenance records in lieu of an inspection if the repair
history can be conclusively determined from that review. The FAA has
also revised the SUMMARY of this final rule to reflect this allowance.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Brazilian AD 2019-11-07 describes procedures for a one-time records
review (for documentation of certain repairs) and a GVI of the MLG aft
pintle pins to determine if certain repairs were done (by checking for
certain markings and part numbers), and replacement of certain MLG aft
pintle pins with serviceable MLG aft pintle pins. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 659 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................           \*\ $         \*\ $170     \*\ $112,030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide parts cost estimates for the
  replacements specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2020-07-21 Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A.
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.): Amendment 39-
19900; Docket No. FAA-2019-1074; Product Identifier 2019-NM-191-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 26, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer
S.A.) airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3), of this
AD, certificated in any category, as identified in Ag[ecirc]ncia
Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC) Brazilian AD 2019-11-
07, effective November 18, 2019 (``Brazilian AD 2019-11-07'').
    (1) Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU
airplanes.
    (2) Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, -200 STD, and -200 LL
airplanes.
    (3) Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 ECJ, -100 IGW, -200
STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that certain main
landing gear (MLG) aft pintle pins repaired using a sulphamate
nickel plating have a life limit that is less than the certified
life limit. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the
affected MLG aft pintle pins before reaching the certified life
limit, which could result in collapse of the MLG during takeoff or
landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Brazilian AD 2019-11-07.

(h) Exceptions to Brazilian AD 2019-11-07

    (1) Where Brazilian AD 2019-11-07 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Alternative method of compliance (AMOC)'' section of
Brazilian AD 2019-11-07 does not apply to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of Brazilian AD 2019-11-
07 specify to carry out an inspection in the airplane technical
documentation and a general visual inspection (GVI) on them, this AD
requires a GVI of the MLG aft pintle pins to determine if certain
repairs were done. A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the repair history can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (4) Where paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of Brazilian AD 2019-11-
07 specify to use a ``new serviceable one,'' for this AD, use a
serviceable MLG aft pintle pin as defined in Brazilian AD 2019-11-
07.

(i) No Requirement for Return of Parts

    Although the service information referenced in Brazilian AD
2019-11-07 specifies to return parts to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's
authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Krista Greer,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o (ANAC)
Brazilian AD 2019-11-07, effective November 18, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about ANAC Brazilian AD 2019-11-07, contact
National Civil Aviation Agency, Aeronautical Products Certification
Branch (GGCP), Rua Laurent Martins, n[deg] 209, Jardim Esplanada,
CEP 12242-431--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil;
telephone 55 (12) 3203-6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.anac.gov.br/en/.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-1074.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on April 10, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08219 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 6562-6563]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

February 5, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2232-531.
    c. Date Filed: December 18, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Duke Power, a division of Duke Energy Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Catawba-Wateree Project.
    f. Location: This project is located on the Catawba and Wateree
Rivers, in nine counties in North Carolina (Burke, Alexander, McDowell,
Iredell, Caldwell, Lincoln, Catawba, Gaston, and Mecklenburg Counties)
and five counties in South Carolina (York, Chester, Lancaster,
Fairfield and Kershaw Counties). This project does not occupy any
Tribal or federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a), 825(r),
799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kelvin K. Reagan, Senior Lake Services
Representative; Duke Energy Corporation; P.O. Box 1006; Charlotte, NC;
28201-1006;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Brian Romanek at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: March 5, 2007.

    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2232-531) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Request: Duke Power, licensee for the Catawba-
Wateree Hydroelectric Project, has requested Commission authorization
to lease to the Diane Shores Homeowners Association, Inc., 1.218 acres
of project lands for use as a Commercial/Residential Marina to serve
residents of the Diane Shores Subdivision. The Diane Shores Subdivision
is located on Lake Norman in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The
proposal is to construct 2 cluster docks that would accommodate a total
of 22 boats (10 slips are existing). Diane Shores plans to dredge 1,982
cubic yards of lake bottom and haul it off-site. Two hundred and fifty
(250) cubic yards of dredged material would be used to construct a berm
that would be landscaped.
    l. Location of the Application: This filing is available for review
at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described applications. A copy of the
applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2270 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 12174-12175]
[DOCID:fr23mr09-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Waterbury-Oxford Airport, Oxford, CT; FAA Approval of Noise
Compatibility Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Transportation under the provisions of Title
I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-
193) and 14 CFR Part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the
description of Federal and non-federal responsibilities in Senate
Report No. 96-52 (1980). On November 6, 2008, the FAA determined that
the noise exposure maps submitted by the Connecticut Department of
Transportation under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable
requirements. On January 14, 2009, the Manager, Airports Division, New
England Region, approved the Waterbury-Oxford Airport noise
compatibility program. All 12 of the proposed program elements were
approved.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Waterbury-Oxford Airport noise compatibility program is January 14,
2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Bryon Rakoff, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone (781) 238-
7610.
    Documents reflecting this FAA action may be obtained from the same
individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Waterbury-Oxford Airport noise
compatibility program, effective January 14, 2009.
    Under Section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
of 1979 (hereinafter 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 Regulation (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 as
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 a 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 under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Regional Office in Burlington, Massachusetts.
    The Connecticut Department of Transportation submitted to the FAA,
on October 9, 2008, noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other
documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study
conducted from September 2004 to October 2008. The Waterbury-Oxford
Airport noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance
with applicable requirements on November 6, 2008. Notice of this
determination was published in the Federal Register on December 1,
2008.
    The Waterbury-Oxford Airport study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for implementation
by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from the date of study
completion to beyond the year 2012. The Connecticut Department of
Transportation requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this
material as a noise compatibility program as described in Section
104(b) of the Act.
    The FAA began its review of the program on November 6, 2008, and
was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the
program within 180 days (other than the use of

new flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such a program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to
be an approval of such a program.
    The submitted program contained 12 proposed actions for noise
mitigation on and 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 Manager, Airports Division, New England Region
effective January 14, 2009.
    All 12 of the proposed program elements were approved. The 12
program elements include noise abatement departure flight tracks, noise
abatement departure profile, preferential runway use, coordination of
proposed zoning changes, fair disclosure of real estate transactions,
noise related subdivision regulatory review, voluntary residential
property acquisition, voluntary sound insulation, establishment of a
Noise Abatement Committee, development of a Web site for public
outreach, publication of operational noise abatement measures in pilot
guides, and provision for updates to the noise compatibility program
measures and noise contours.
    FAA's determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by the Manager, Airports Division, New England Region
on January 14, 2009. 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 Waterbury-Oxford Airport, Oxford, CT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 14, 2009.
LaVerne F. Reid,
Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
 [FR Doc. E9-6171 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37041-37042]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight and
Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements--Flightcrew Members

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves reporting exceeded flight duty
periods and flight times, including scheduled maximum and actual flight
duty periods and flight times, basic flight information (e.g., city
pairs, departure times, flight number), and reason for exceedance.
Reporting and recordkeeping are required any time a certificated air
carrier has exceeded a maximum daily flight time limit or a maximum
daily Flight Duty Period (FDP) limit. It is also required for the
voluntary development of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS), and
for fatigue training. The information is necessary to monitor trends in
exceedance and possible underlying systemic causes requiring operator
action, and to determine whether operator is scheduling realistically.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0751.
    Title: Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest Requirements--
Flightcrew Members.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: This is a renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The FAA collects reports from air carriers conducting
passenger operations certificated under 14 CFR part 121 as prescribed
in 14 CFR part 117 Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements,
Sec. Sec.  117.11 and 117.19. Air carriers are required to submit a
report of exceeded flight duty periods and flight times, including
scheduled maximum and actual flight duty periods and flight times,
basic flight information (e.g., city pairs, departure times, flight
number), and reason for exceedance. The purpose for the reports is to
notify the FAA that the certificate holder has extended a flight time
and/or FDP limitation. This information enables FAA to monitor trends
in exceedance and possible underlying systemic causes requiring
operator action as well as determine whether operators are scheduling
realistically. Additionally, if air carriers choose to develop a
Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) they are required to collect data
specific to the need of the operation for which they will seek an FRMS
authorization. It results in an annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden when carriers adopt the system because they need to report the
related activities to the FAA. Each

air carrier is also required to develop specific elements and
incorporate these elements into their training program. Once the
elements have been incorporated, the air carrier must submit the
revised training program for approval.
    Respondents: 67 certificated air carriers.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,178 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2018.
Robin Darden,
Management Support Specialist, Performance, Policy, and Records
Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-16364 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39113-39115]
[DOCID:fr11jy06-95]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8196-3; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0002]

Draft Toxicological Review of Dichlorobenzenes: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Comment Period and External Peer Review Panel
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a public comment period and an external
peer review panel meeting to review selected sections of the final
draft document titled, ``Toxicological Review of Dichlorobenzenes: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' (EPA/

635/R-03/015), related to the inhalation reference concentration (RfC)
and inhalation cancer assessment for 1,4-dichlorobenzene. The document
was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
within EPA's Office of Research and Development.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments
submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.

DATES: The public comment period begins on July 11, 2006 and ends
August 9, 2006. Technical comments should be in writing and must be
received by EPA by August 9, 2006. The peer review panel meeting will
be conducted on August 16, 2006 by teleconference and will begin at 1
p.m. and end at 4 p.m. Members of the public may call into the
teleconference meeting and are invited to provide oral statements at
the commencement of the teleconference. (For more information refer to
the instructions for registration provided in the ADDRESSES section of
this notice.)

ADDRESSES: The external peer review panel meeting will be held by
teleconference. Under an Interagency Agreement between EPA and the
Department of Energy, the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education
(ORISE) is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer review panel
meeting. To obtain the teleconference call-in number and access code,
register by August 11, 2006, by calling ORISE, P.O. Box 117, MS 17, Oak
Ridge, TN 37831-0117, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile).
Interested parties may also register on-line at: http://www.orau.gov/dichlorobenzene.
 Public comments submitted to the EPA by August 9, 2006

will be provided to the external peer review panel prior to the
teleconference meeting.
    The draft ``Toxicological Review of Dichlorobenzenes: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)''
(EPA/635/R-03/015) is available primarily via the Internet on NCEA's
home page under the Recent Additions menu at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A

limited number of paper copies are available by contacting the IRIS
Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you are requesting a paper copy, please

provide your name, mailing address, the document title, and the EPA
number of the requested publication. Copies are not available from
ORISE.
    Copies of the study by Aiso et al. (2005), referenced in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice are available from the
IRIS Hotline in paper or electronic format. If you are requesting a
copy, please provide your name, mailing address or email address, and
document citation: Aiso et al. (2005) Carcinogenicity and chronic
toxicity in mice and rats exposed by inhalation to para-dichlorobenzene
for two years. J Vet Med Sci 67(10): 1019-1029.
    Technical comments may be submitted electronically via
http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/

courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding registration and
logistics for the external peer review panel teleconference should be
directed to Margaret Lyday, ORISE, P.O. Box 117, MS 17, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-0117, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

    If you have questions about the document, contact Audrey Galizia,
Chemical Manager, National Center for Environmental Assessment
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER> e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    IRIS is a database that contains scientific Agency positions on
potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or
lifetime) exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. The database (available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris
) contains qualitative and quantitative health effects

information for more than 500 chemical substances that may be used to
support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response
evaluation) of the risk assessment process. When supported by available
data, the database provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation
reference concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral
slope factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.
    1,4-Dichlorobenzene is widely used as a space deodorant for toilets
and refuse containers, as a moth repellent in moth balls or crystals,
and in other pesticide applications. The current IRIS assessment for
1,4-dichlorobenzene was placed on the database in 1994 and contains an
inhalation RfC. A reassessment of the potential health effects of
dichlorobenzenes has been undertaken. The draft assessment for
dichlorobenzenes (including the 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-isomers) was
subject to an external peer review and 30-day public comment period in
February 2004 (69 FR 4514, January 30, 2004). The scope of the current
external peer review and public comment is limited to the analyses
based on a chronic inhalation bioassay of 1,4-dichlorobenzene published
in the peer-reviewed literature (Aiso et al., 2005. J Vet Med Sci
67(10): 1019-29) that was not included in the February 2004 external
peer review draft. This study was identified originally as an
unpublished study report by the Japan Bioassay Research Center (JBRC,
1995). Data from Aiso et al. (2005) were used subsequently in the
quantitative dose-response assessments for the 1,4-dichlorobenzene RfC
and inhalation cancer assessment.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2004-
0002 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments in writing, please submit one unbound
original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the
comments. For

attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the
comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2004-0002. 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 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the

EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: July 5, 2006.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E6-10870 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 4549-4550]
[DOCID:fr31ja07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55171; File No. SR-BSE-2007-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Establishment of a Pilot Program That Increases
Position and Exercise Limits for Options on the iShares[supreg] Russell
2000[supreg] Index Fund

 January 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 23, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by BSE. BSE has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Section 7 of the Rules
of the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') to exempt options on the
iShares[supreg] Russell 2000[supreg] Index Fund (``IWM'') from the
position and exercise limits provided for under the Chapter III,
Section 7 Pilot Program and to increase the standard position and
exercise limits for IWM as part of an approximately six-month pilot
(``Chapter III, Section 7 IWM Pilot Program''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available at BSE, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.bostonstock.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Section 7 of the BOX
Rules on a pilot basis for approximately six months to exempt options
on IWM from the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program. Under the Chapter
III, Section 7 Pilot Program, the position and exercise limits for IWM
were reduced on January 22, 2007 from 500,000 to 250,000 contracts. The
Exchange now proposes to allow position and exercise limits for options
on IWM to return to and continue at 500,000 contracts on a pilot basis,
from January 23, 2007 through July 22, 2007.
    In June 2005, as a result of a 2-for-1 stock split, the position
limit for IWM options was temporarily increased from 250,000 contracts
(covering 25,000,000 shares) to 500,000 contracts (covering 50,000,000
shares). At the time of the split, the furthest IWM option expiration
date was January 2007. Therefore, the temporary increase of the IWM
position limit reverted to the pre-split level (as provided for in
connection with the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program) of 250,000
contracts after expiration in January 2007, or on January 22, 2007.
    The Exchange believes that a position limit of 250,000 contracts is
too low and may be a deterrent to the successful trading of IWM
options. Importantly, options on IWM are \1/10\th the size of options
on the Russell 2000[supreg] Index (``RUT''), which have a position
limit of 50,000 contracts.\5\ Traders who trade IWM options to hedge
positions in RUT options are likely to find a position limit of 250,000
contracts in IWM options too restrictive and insufficient to properly
hedge. For example, if a trader held 50,000 RUT options and wanted to
hedge that position with IWM options, the trader would need--at a
minimum--500,000 IWM options to properly hedge the position. Therefore,
the Exchange believes that a position limit of 250,000 contracts is too
low and may adversely affect market participants' ability to provide
liquidity in this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Chapter XIV, Section 5 of BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, IWM options have grown to become one of the largest
options contracts in terms of trading volume. For example, the volume
in options on IWM set a new single-day record on June 8, 2006, when
760,803 contracts (120,229 calls and 640,574 puts) traded on that day.
This record level volume beat the previous single-day high of 727,521
contracts on May 17, 2006. Further, over the past six months, the
average daily BOX trading volume of IWM options has been 9,346
contracts and a total of 1,177,640 IWM contracts have traded between
July 22, 2006 and January 22, 2007.
    As a result, the Exchange proposes that options on IWM be subject
to position and exercise limits of 500,000 contracts on a pilot basis
to run from January 23, 2007 through July 22, 2007.\6\ The Exchange
believes that increasing position and exercise limits for IWM options
will lead to a more liquid and more competitive market environment for
IWM options that will benefit customers interested in this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to Chapter III, Section 7 of BOX Rules, the
exercise limit established under Chapter III, Section 7 for IWM
options shall be equivalent to the position limit prescribed for IWM
options in Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter III, Section 7. The
increased exercise limits would only be in effect during the pilot
period, to run from January 23, 2007 through July 22, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would require that each member or member organization
that maintains a position on the same side of the market in excess of
10,000 contracts in the IWM option class, for its own account or for
the account of a customer report certain information.\7\ This data
would include, but would not be limited to, the option position,
whether such position is hedged and if so, a description of the hedge,
and if applicable, the collateral used to carry the position. Exchange
market-makers would continue to be exempt from this reporting
requirement as market-maker information can be accessed through the
Exchange's market surveillance systems. In addition, the general
reporting requirement for customer accounts that maintain a position in
excess of 200 contracts will remain at this level for IWM options.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Chapter III, Section 10(b) of BOX Rules.
    \8\ See Chapter III, Section 10(a) of BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\12\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would permit position and exercise limits for options on IWM to
continue at 500,000 option contracts for an approximately six-month
pilot period. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change to be effective and operative upon filing with the
Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Commission has decided to waive the five-day
pre-filing notice requirement.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-BSE-2007-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of BSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-
2007-03 and should be submitted on or before February 21, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1510 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45414-45415]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15036]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11123-01-OA]

Public Meeting of the Chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) and CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and
Particulate Matter Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Chartered
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and CASAC Oxides of
Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Panel, hereafter, referred to as
the CASAC NOX/SOX/PM Panel to discuss a draft
CASAC report on EPA's Policy Assessment (PA) for the Review of the
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of
Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur and Particulate Matter, External Review
Draft.

DATES: The Chartered CASAC and CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur, and Particulate Matter Secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) Panel will meet on the following dates. All times
listed are in Eastern Time.
    1. September 5, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    2. September 6, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be conducted virtually. Please refer to the
CASAC website at https://casac.epa.gov for details on how to access the
meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this notice may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone at
(202) 564-2050 or via email at [email protected]. General information
concerning the CASAC, as well as any updates concerning the meetings
announced in this notice can be found on the CASAC website: https://casac.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review
air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend to the EPA Administrator
any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be
appropriate. The CASAC shall also: advise the EPA Administrator of
areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the
adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the
research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise
the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution
concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise
the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social,
economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies
for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. As amended, 5 U.S.C.,
App. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA
carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air
quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six ``criteria'' air pollutants,
including oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and PM.
    The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., app. 2, and conducts
business in accordance with FACA and related regulations. The CASAC and
the CASAC NOX/SOX/PM Panel will comply with the
provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural
policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that
the Chartered CASAC and NOX/SOX/PM Panel will
hold a public meeting to discuss a draft CASAC report on EPA's PA.
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's PA
should be directed to Ms. Ginger Tennant ([email protected]).
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible on the CASAC
website: https://casac.epa.gov.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal

advisory committee is different from the process used to submit
comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and
panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent
advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments on
the topic of this advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC
and the EPA review documents, and/or the group conducting the activity,
for the CASAC to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the
public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific
scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider
or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical
information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should
follow the instructions below to submit comments.
    Oral Statements: Individuals or groups requesting an oral
presentation during the public meeting will be limited to three
minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing
written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points
presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties
should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email)
at the contact information noted above by August 29, 2023, to be placed
on the list of public speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC
members, statements should be supplied by August 29, 2023. Written
statements should be supplied to the DFO at the contact information
above via email. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned
version. Members of the public should be aware that their personal
contact information if included in any written comments, may be posted
to the SAB website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without the
explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202)
564-2050 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO, at the contact information noted
above, preferably at least ten days prior to each meeting, to give EPA
as much time as possible to process your request.

V. Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-15036 Filed 7-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE  OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

PC Code: 056502

DP Barcode: D316526

Date:  May 24, 2005

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Review of Public Comments on the Pentachloronitrobenzene
Revised Risk Assessments and Preliminary Risk Reduction Options (Phase 5
of Six-Phase Process)

TO:		Jill Bloom, Chemical Review Manager

Special Review and Reregistration Division

FROM:	Cheryl A. Sutton, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

Thomas M. Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist

R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist

Environmental Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507c)

APPROVED

   BY:	Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief

ERB IV, EFED

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed its
review of the technical registrants’ joint comments received from
Amvac Chemical Corporation and Crompton Corporation on the
Pentachloronitobenzene (PCNB) Revised Risk Assessments and Preliminary
Risk Reduction Options Phase 5.  Specifically, EFED has reviewed the
comments relevant to the environmental fate and ecological risk
assessment chapter in support of the re-registration eligibility
decision (RED) for pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB; DP Barcode D291276).
These comments were received as part of the Phase 5 public comment phase
of the RED process.  Additional comments received by OPP from Gustafson
LLC and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America were
reviewed by EFED, but are not addressed in this memo as they were not
specifically applicable to the EFED chapter.

As with earlier comments made by the registrants in the error-only and
public comment phases (DP Barcode D291276), a large percentage of the
comments focused on the underlying assumptions used by EFED in modeling
surface water numbers for drinking water and ecological risk
assessments, and on the resulting conservatism associated with the
estimated surface water concentrations.  EFED estimated surface water
concentrations using standard modeling procedures and input parameter
guidance that have been subject to rigorous internal and external
quality assurance review.  These procedures and guidance are used in all
modeling done by EFED.  The screening-level process and underlying
assumptions used by EFED to estimate aquatic risks associated with the
current uses of PCNB is fully described in the Overview of the
Ecological Risk Assessment Process in Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
document
(http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf)
and has been subject to review by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP).

Most of the Phase 5 comments on the environmental fate and ecological
risk assessment chapter have been addressed by EFED during previous
responses to comments phases (DP Barcode D291276; dated 7/26/2004 and
12/22/2004).  For example, the registrants continue to insist that the
submitted water monitoring data compiled by Cohen et al. (MRID
463270-01) indicate that the water modeling results are overly
conservative.  EFED has reviewed these data and determined the
monitoring to have significant deficiencies.  In general, the main
shortcomings were that the summary document did not report the search
strategy or criteria by which monitoring data were identified for
inclusion (or, conversely, were excluded from the document); date and
rate information were not clear for all studies; and insufficient
ancillary information was reported.

With regard to the registrants’ statement that the risk assessment did
not utilize a golf course adjustment factor when modeling turf, EFED
notes that the chapter did, in fact, utilize such and incorporated the
resulting drinking water concentration as a refinement for a golf course
“turf-use” scenario.  A similar refinement was conducted for the
estimated environmental concentration used in calculating aquatic risk
quotients (RQs) for PCNB use on golf courses.  These refinements were
based on the registrants’ formally stated intent to drop the use on
golf course roughs from the labels.  However, although the refinements
were included in the chapter, the RQ’s utilized to characterize risks
associated with PCNB use on turf were based on unadjusted (i.e.,
non-refined) water concentrations.  This was necessary, as the labels
allow for PCNB use on other types of turf (e.g., commercial sod farms,
residential, right-of-way, recreational) to which the golf course
adjustment factor (GCAF) is not applicable.  In such a case, the RQ’s
used in the risk estimation/characterization must be applicable to any
turf use to fully account for the risks associated with the use of the
pesticide on turf.

With regard to the registrants’ statement that the risk assessment did
not utilize a more appropriate percentage crop area (PCA) for sod farms,
EFED notes that PCA’s are currently used only for agricultural crops.
A PCA factor is used to adjust the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWC’s) to take into account that a portion of a
watershed contains fields planted with a specific crop.  However,
PCA’s have been developed for only a few agricultural crops to date,
largely limited by availability of data at the required scale;
therefore, a default PCA of 0.87 is used for the majority of
agricultural crops.  As turf uses may include golf courses, recreational
fields, parks, residential lawns, ornamental turf, some rights-of-ways,
cemeteries, etc., a PCA was not used in estimating water concentrations
associated with PCNB use on turf.  At this time, acceptable data are not
available to the Office of Pesticide Programs at the scale needed to
develop the non-agricultural equivalent of a PCA for golf course, or
other turf uses.

The registrants pointed out that in the avian seed exposure calculations
the amount of PCNB reported as the exposure of a small bird is
equivalent to a treatment of 11.3% of the seed and that this is 100
times the average treatment rate of the seeds shown in Table 10.  The
seed treatment rates reported in Table 10 of the environmental fate and
ecological effects risk assessment are based on seeding rates reported
in past assessments by OPP and which were obtained from crop profiles or
through discussions with various pesticide registrants. Maximum seeding
rates were used from various crop profiles (these profiles can be found
at http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop).  When the
registrant-submitted value was higher than those found in the crop
profiles, they were used preferentially.  The maximum application rate
to seed  used in the calculations is the maximum application rate (lbs
ai/Acre) divided by the maximum seeding rate (lbs seed/Acre) reported in
Table 10.  Thus, for cotton, 0.0408 lbs a.i./A divided by 18 lbs seed/A
is equivalent to the 2265 mg a.i./Kg seed value reported in the text and
used in subsequent exposure calculations.  EFED concurs with the
registrant that the exposure value is conservative; however, it is
derived from the values reported in Table 10 and is not an error.

With regard to the comments on the potential for the atmospheric
transport of PCNB, the registrants noted that the number of detections
were limited and/or could be explained by potential PCNB use in areas
adjacent to sampling stations.  They also correctly noted that the
statement concerning “PCA” detected in the Canadian Arctic study
should have identified the compound as pentachloroanisole (PCAN), not
pentachloroaniline (PCA).  Pentachloroanisole has also, however, been
observed in several studies in the literature to form from
pentachlorophenol (PCP) that ostensibly formed from PCNB (see risk
assessment for more detail).  Regardless, EFED maintains that PCNB has
properties consistent with chemicals that have a potential for
long-range atmospheric transport.  EFED concurs with the registrant that
the data are limited; however, targeted monitoring data are not
available to substantiate the registrants’ claim, contrary to what
PCNB chemical properties suggest, that PCNB is not likely to undergo
atmospheric transport.  EFED, in reporting peak concentrations detected
rather than quantifying the number of detections relative to the number
of samples taken, was attempting to demonstrate that this mechanism of
transport will constitute a potential route of exposure for nontarget
animals distant from use sites.

( PAGE  3 (


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 32356]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL17-30-000]

Nogales Transmission, L.L.C.; Nogales Frontier Operations,
L.L.C.; Notice of Supplement To Petiton for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on June 30, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), Nogales Transmission,
L.L.C. (Nogales Transmission) and Nogales Frontier Operations, L.L.C.
(Nogales Operations) filed a second supplement to its petition for
declaratory order, filed on December 21, 2016, as more fully explained
in its supplemented petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for 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>call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 14, 2017.

    Dated: July 6, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14654 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27440]
[DOCID:fr11my06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA R03-OAR-2004-WV-0001; FRL-8168-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to redesignate the City of Weirton PM-10
nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the maintenance plan
published on October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62637). EPA is also withdrawing
the correcting amendment to the NPR published on November 9, 2004 (69
FR 64860).

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn as of May 11, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Miller,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, a
separate proposed rulemaking entitiled ``Approval and Promulgation of
Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Redesignation of the
City of Weirton PM-10 Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of
the Limited Maintenance Plan,'' provides more detailed legal and
factual basis for supporting our decision to withdraw the NPR and its
related correcting amendment. Our proposed action to approve the State
of West Virginia request to redesignate the Weirton area to attainment
and approve the associated maintenance plan is also found in the NPR in
today's Federal Register.
    Separate dockets have been prepared for the new proposal and this
notice to withdraw the October 27, 2004 Weirton notice of proposed
rulemaking.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National Parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 28, 2006.
Judith Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E6-7215 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11778-11780]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1815]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood

Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the
table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information
and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the
FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the
basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report,
once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1815, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Canyon County, Idaho and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 11-10-0399S Preliminary Date: September 16, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Star...........................  City Hall, 10769 West State
                                          Street, Star, ID 83669.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Jefferson County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 14-10-0586S Preliminary Date: January 4, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson        Jefferson County Department of
 County.                                  Community Development, 621
                                          Sheridan Street, Port
                                          Townsend, WA 98368.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-05410 Filed 3-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P