[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64518-64519]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC20-16-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: EC20-17-000.
    Applicants: Traverse Wind Energy LLC, Maverick Wind Project, LLC,
Sundance Wind Project, LLC, Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Traverse Wind Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-34-000.
    Applicants: Invenergy Wilkinson Solar Holdings LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Invenergy Wilkinson Solar Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2718-033.
    Applicants: Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Cogen
Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1858-008.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Supplement to June 28, 2019 Triennial Market Power
Analysis for the Northwest Region of NorthWestern Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-801-007.
    Applicants: Constellation Power Source Generation, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filings to be effective 3/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-802-007.
    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filings to be effective 8/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-803-004.
    Applicants: Handsome Lake Energy, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filings to be effective 4/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2175-001.
    Applicants: Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-406-002.
    Applicants: Brunner Island, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2254-002.
    Applicants: MC Project Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2669-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response in ER19-2669--
Financial Security for System Upgrades to be effective 10/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-28-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Pending Tariff Filing
in ER20-28 to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-217-001.
    Applicants: GridLiance West LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: GLW TRBAA Amendment Filing 2020 to
be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/2/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-394-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: IS0-NE & NEPOOL; Changes to
ISO-NE Financial Assurance Policy: Trading FA to be effective 1/15/
2020.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-395-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO New England; Changes to
ISO-NE Financial Assurance Policy: Net CONE to be effective 1/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-396-000.
    Applicants: Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions, Full Requirements
Electric Svc Agreements & Tariff to be effective 6/28/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-397-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEF-Vandolah LGIA/FMPA NITSA
(FRCC Revisions) to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-398-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-11-18 CRR Exchange
Agreement with TANC to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20191118-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF20-293-000.
    Applicants: UE-00801MD LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of UE-00801MD LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5221.
    Comments Due: None-Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25397 Filed 11-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24113-24115]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0341]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Hylebos Waterway, Tacoma, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Hylebos Waterway in Tacoma, Washington. The
safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by a firefighting efforts
onboard the F/V KODIAK ENTERPRISE by emergency response personnel.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from April 19, 2023
through 6 p.m. April 21, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from April 14, 2023 until April 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0341 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Steve Barnett, Sector Puget Sound, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 9, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a rulemaking creating a
temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Hylebos Waterway
in Tacoma, Washington to protect persons and vessels and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by a firefighting efforts
onboard the F/V KODIAK ENTERPRISE by emergency response personnel. The
safety zone was effective from 6 p.m. April 9, 2023 through 6 p.m.
April 14, 2023. A copy of the rulemaking that ended on April 14, 2023
is available in the docket USCG-2022-0341, which can be found using
instructions in the ADDRESSES section. However, additional time is
needed to maintain safe navigation around response equipment and
responders while additional firefighting and damage assessment
operations occur, and, as a result, the Coast Guard is establishing
through temporary regulations a safety zone that will be in effect
through April 21, 2023. The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority
under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule due to the fire
onboard F/V KODIAK. Firefighting efforts are still ongoing, and several
dangerous conditions exist because of those firefighting response
efforts and the state of the vessel. The vessel is currently listing
with diesel fuel and other pollution hazards onboard. The Coast Guard
must take continued action to respond to a potential threat to public
safety in the Hylebos Waterway, Tacoma, WA. The Coast Guard was unable
to publish an NPRM and hold a reasonable comment period for this
rulemaking due to the emergent nature to continue response operations.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with firefighting
efforts onboard F/V KODIAK ENTERPRISE.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Puget Sound
(COTP) has determined that potential safety hazards exist while ongoing
firefighting is taking place onboard the F/V KODIAK ENTERPRISE in the
Hylebos Waterway. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety
zone while response actions are taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 6 p.m. on April
14, 2023 until 6 p.m. on April 21, 2023. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters within the Hylebos Waterway in Tacoma, WA. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while firefighting
operations onboard the F/V KODIAK ENTERPRISE are ongoing. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the
safety zone created by this rule is limited in size and duration.
Critical vessel traffic will be able to safely transit through this
safety zone with permission from the COTP or designee. Moreover, the
Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship

between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it
is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only as long as necessary for response operations
that will prohibit entry or departure from the Hylebos Waterway,
Tacoma, WA. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination will be available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0341 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0341  Safety Zone; Hylebos Waterway, Tacoma, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: from the
entrance to the Hylebos Waterway to the Turning Basin in Tacoma, WA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no persons or vessels may enter or remain in
the safety zone created in this unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port or their designated representative. For permission to enter the
safety zone, contact the on-scene designated representative or Joint
Harbor Operations Center via VHF CH16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the
safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to
them by the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6 p.m.
April 14, 2023 until 6 p.m. on April 21, 2023, unless an earlier end is
announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM marine channel 16.

    Dated: April 14, 2023.
Y. Moon,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Puget
Sound.
[FR Doc. 2023-08387 Filed 4-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13684-13686]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04678]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88313; File No. SR-IEX-2020-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) To Include the Long-Term Stock
Exchange, Inc. (LTSE) in the List of Away Trading Centers to Which the
Exchange Routes and the Market Data Sources the Exchange Will Use To
Determine LTSE's Top of Book Quotation

March 3, 2020.
    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 February 20, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``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 prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\3\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\4\ the
Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a) to include the Long-Term Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE'') in the list of away trading centers to which
the Exchange routes and the market data sources the Exchange will use
to determine LTSE's Top of Book \5\ quotation, in anticipation of
LTSE's planned launch. The Exchange has designated this rule change as
``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and
provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\7\ The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 statement [sic] may be examined
at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory
organization 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 IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) \8\ and
11.410(a) \9\ to include the Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE'')
in the list of away trading centers to which the Exchange routes and
the market data sources the Exchange will use to determine LTSE's Top
of Book \10\ quotation, in anticipation of LTSE's planned launch, which
LTSE expects ``toward the end of Q1 2020.'' \11\ The Exchange is also
proposing to re-alphabetize the list of away trading centers in both
IEX Rules 2.220(a)(7) and 11.410(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7) lists the away trading centers that IEX
Services LLC (``IEX Services'') routes to as outbound router for the
Exchange.
    \9\ IEX Rule 11.410(a) specifies the market data sources for
each away trading center that the Exchange uses for necessary price
reference points.
    \10\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(1).
    \11\ See LTSE FAQ for Exchange Launch published on January 3,
2020, available at: https://ltse.com/static/MA-2020-001-e5bc8cb62425903526027cdeed7b14fd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7)
to add LTSE to the list of away trading centers to which IEX Services
routes orders. As set forth in IEX Rule 11.230(b)(2), IEX Services
routes eligible orders to away trading centers with accessible
Protected Quotations in compliance with Regulation NMS Rule 611.\12\
The Exchange must include LTSE in its list of away trading centers to
which it routes, because LTSE's best-priced, displayed quotation will
be a Protected Quotation under Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(62) \13\ for
purposes of Regulation NMS Rule 611.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \13\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(62).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85828 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 21841, 21849 (May 15, 2019) (File No. 10-234) (Order
approving LTSE application for registration as a national securities
exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend and update the table in IEX
Rule 11.410(a) specifying the primary sources for LTSE market data. As
specified in IEX Rule 11.410(a)(2), the Exchange uses market data from
each away trading center that produces a Protected Quotation \15\ to
determine each away trading center's Top of Book quotation, as well as
the NBBO \16\ for certain reporting, regulatory and compliance systems
within IEX. As proposed, the Exchange will use securities information
processor (``SIP'') data, i.e., CQS SIP data for securities reported
under the Consolidated Quotation Services and Consolidated Tape
Association plans and UQDF SIP data for securities reported under the
Nasdaq Unlisted Trading Privileges plan, to determine LTSE Top of Book
quotes. No secondary source for LTSE market data will be specified
because LTSE has announced that it will only distribute market data to
the SIPs and will not have a proprietary market data feed.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See IEX Rule 1.160(bb).
    \16\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \17\ See supra note 11 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the proposed changes to the table in IEX Rule
11.410(a), the Exchange proposes to make a conforming change to IEX
Rule 11.410(a)(2) to reflect that, as proposed, the Exchange will use
SIP data as the primary source from which it will determine Top of Book
quotations for LTSE and for certain reporting, regulatory and
compliance systems within IEX.\18\ While the Exchange uses proprietary
market data feeds to determine the Protected Quotations of all but two
of the other away markets,\19\ it will utilize the SIP quote feeds to
determine LTSE's Protected Quotations because LTSE will only distribute
market data to the SIP and will not have a proprietary market data
feed.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See IEX Rule 11.410(a)(2).
    \19\ The Exchange also uses CQS/UQDF SIP data as the exclusive
source of market data for NYSE Chicago (XCHI) and NYSE National
(XCIS). See IEX Rule 11.410(a).
    \20\ See supra note 11 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange is proposing to make nonsubstantive
changes to the list of away trading

centers in IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7) and the table of away trading centers
in IEX Rule 11.410(a) to list each away trading center in alphabetical
order.
    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to IEX Rules
2.220(a)(7) and 11.410. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which orders are handled or routed by the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \21\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors
and the public interest because including LTSE in the list of away
trading centers to which IEX routes and in the sources of market data
the Exchange will use to determine away trading center Top of Book
quotes will facilitate the Exchange's compliance with the applicable
requirements of Regulation NMS. Similarly, the Exchange believes it is
consistent with the Act to specify in Rule 11.410(a)(2) that the
Exchange will use SIP data to calculate LTSE's Top of Book quotation
and for certain reporting, regulatory and compliance systems within the
Exchange, because it will facilitate compliance with the applicable
requirements of Regulation NMS and provide clarity in this regard to
market participants.
    Additionally, adding LTSE to the list of away trading centers to
which IEX routes and in the sources of market data the Exchange will
use to determine away trading center Top of Book quotes provides
transparency with respect to the away trading centers to which IEX
Services may route orders and the sources of market data the Exchange
will use to determine LTSE Top of Book quotes. In addition, and as
further noted in the Purpose section, LTSE will only disseminate its
market data through the SIP, so use of SIP data to determine LTSE's Top
of Book quotes is the only means to do so.
    Further, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to
update the referenced rules to list all the away trading centers in
alphabetical order, to enhance clarity to market participants.
    As noted in the Purpose section, the proposed changes are
nonsubstantive and do not alter the manner in which orders are handled
or routed by the Exchange.

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed update does not impact competition in any respect since its
purpose is to enhance transparency with respect to the operation of the
Exchange and its use of market data feeds, and to update an away market
name.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \25\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \26\ 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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends IEX rules to reflect the launch of
LTSE as an away trading center with a Protected Quote and specifies
that IEX will route orders to LTSE and use the SIP to determine LTSE's
Top of Book quotation. Additionally, the proposed rule change will make
a nonsubstantive change to re-alphabetize the list of away trading
centers in IEX Rule 2.220(a)(7) to enhance clarity to market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule
change in anticipation of LTSE's exchange launch, thereby facilitating
IEX's compliance with the applicable requirements of Regulation NMS and
providing clarity to market participants with respect to whether IEX
routes to LTSE and how IEX determines LTSE's Top of Book quotation. The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change does not raise any new or novel
issues. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \28\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2020-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the IEX's principal office and on its internet website
at www.iextrading.com. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-03
and should be submitted on or before March 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04678 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62557-62558]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0410]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0013

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0013,
Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines; without change.
    Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
December 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2021-0410]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, STOP 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2021-0410], and must be received by December 10,
2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0013.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (86 FR 46863, August 20, 2021)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0013.
    Summary: This information collection is required to ensure that
certain vessels are not overloaded--as evidenced by the submerging of
their assigned load line. In general, vessels over 150 gross tons or 24
meters (79 feet) in length engaged in commerce on international or
coastwise voyages by sea are required to obtain a Load Line
Certificate.
    Need: Title 46 U.S. Code 5101 to 5116 provides the Coast Guard with
the authority to enforce provisions of the International Load Line
Convention, 1966. Title 46 CFR subchapter E--Load Lines, contains the
relevant regulations.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 757
hours to 687 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: November 5, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-24581 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


could have gotten cheaper tickets. Mr. DeLeon agreed that sometimes
using the preferred carrier is cheaper, sometimes more expensive. But,
without a preferred carrier, his office would become a travel agency
because everybody’s travel for all five committees would have to be
booked through one person, and that is not the answer.

Dr. Ganster expressed appreciation for Mr. DeLeon’s efforts and those
of his staff. These sorts of arrangements will be particularly valuable
as the number of cancelled flights increases and the occupancy rate
increases. So, having a more agile alternative will be very valuable.

Approval & Discussion of GNEB Advice Letter to President George W. Bush

Rosario Marin, California State Consumer Services Agency

Luis Ramirez, who could not be present today, wrote an outstanding and
thoughtful letter, which everybody has seen. Ms. Marin moved that this
version be approved and submitted to the President and the Congress as
mandated by law. Ms. Grijalva seconded the motion, noting for the
record, that DOT recused itself.

Discussion

Mr. Wood suggested adding Brownsville on page 2, where it talks about
central lanes. Ms. Grijalva said there are some 300 communities with
central lanes, but Brownsville can be added.

Dr. Brown recalled a comment as to why we are not sending this letter to
the Senate Majority and Minority leaders. He asked what the final
version says about who receives a copy. Ms. Marin said, traditionally
they have sent it only to the people the law stipulates, but she saw no
reason not to send it to other people, as well.

Since the letter is unanimously accepted, Dr. Ganster asked Ms.
Cedeño-Zambrano to get it ready to send out.

GNEB Twelfth Report:  Innovation, including Incentives, to Prevent
/Reduce Pollution at the U. S.–Mexico Border

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB

GNEB members must decide which case studies to present and who will
research them and write them. This must be resolved fairly soon so we
can meet production deadlines. Mr. Joyce has agreed to identify a copy
editor and graphics people to take what we produce, that is, the case
studies and integrating them into a document with introductions and
transitions. Mr. Joyce said he intends to have this contractor at the El
Paso meetings. Dr. Ganster thought that would make life easier for
everyone, noting that members can still add and subtract and change
wording.

Dr. Ganster wanted to talk about individual topics and then about
methodology. He cautioned that cases must be Border-specific in a
bi-national context. Actual practices and problems should have been
solved innovatively. The topics have to have advocates who will work on
them. There are 24 cases in the packet and others may surface; we need
five or six, which should be finished by September 1.

Title

Ms. Wolf and Dr. Austin thought the title unwieldy and perhaps no longer
an accurate reflective of what the board is thinking about. They suggest
“Innovations to Prevent Pollution along the U. S.–Mexico Border.”

Mr. Niemeyer agreed, saying the title would cover everything without
being restrictive. He drew attention to page 12, second to last
paragraph, “the report’s overall theme will be innovation.”

Dr. Ganster suggested selecting a working title that is easy to
remember; then making a final decision in El Paso. Mr. Niemeyer
suggested “Innovative Environmental Strategies along the U.
S.–Mexico Border,” and, after discussion, the group agreed.

Case Studies

Dr. Austin thought the real challenge of doing case study research is
pulling the case studies together and looking at what you are learning
from them and what recommendations you want to make. Much remains to be
done before GNEB is ready to pass a document to a contractor. The main
part of the report has to comply with a template so the projects used
can be readily applied anywhere along the Border.

Ms. Keith thought the main part of the report was not the projects, but
what was learned from the case studies and how that could be applied
elsewhere.

Ms. Grijalva saw the problem with this report as not having an
overarching problem statement to which to address the examples (i.e.,
case studies), which could then be replicated.

Mr. Dorsey suggested changing the agenda of the El Paso meeting, and
spending half a day on presentations related to the case studies they
would be working on, but Dr. Austin thought that would not allow the
time needed.

Mr. Niemeyer thought using this title as a framework would be good
start; then, as discussed in Washington, they could highlight some of
the successes in the Border area, and trumpet that to the rest of the
nation. Mr. Gillen thought they had a good story to tell, and he
envisioned storytelling as a framework.

Ms. Keith said, they work with the Border and its issues so much that
they forget they are dealing with such a unique place. One issue is,
that uniqueness makes it extra hard to deal with the environmental
issues because you have different governments, different cultures, and
different sets of resources on each side of the Border.

Ms. Grijalva still thought it was missing something to weave it
together. There is nothing that is letting these case studies be part of
a single theme, which is why she thought of a problem statement. In
transportation, they often fall into these situations because gadgets
and electronics—that is, the solutions—are available, but you
don’t know for what. You have to identify the problem for your
solution.

Ms. Wolf suggested asking Dr. Austin to go through the framework because
when they wrote the framework, they addressed these concerns, including
the problem statement and an overview that they had hoped would tie it
together.

Mr. Manzanilla wanted to know what has worked, what are the problems
being solved, and how successes can it be replicated. He said this is
really what would benefit his agency.

Approach to Case Studies

Diane Austin & Ann Marie Wolf, Members, GNEB

The minutes report that we approved the topic “incentives to advance
innovation that would lead to pollution prevention.” As a draft, we
grouped the case studies by type of innovation (see page 2):
partnerships, use of resources or resource efficiency, education and
outreach, and policy and procedures, including management systems. The
innovation may be applying something to very small businesses. Clusters
are appearing already, for example, how people treat wastewater from
housing—the wetlands approaches, and the composting toilets approach.

From this we need to derive the results, the lessons learned. As each
case is being developed, people should think about the national
implications and what the Border has to teach other people. All that
information is then woven together in a final report ending with some
kind of recommendation.

Discussion of Potential Case Studies

Several members complimented Dr. Austin’s and Ms. Wolf’s framework.

Mr. Manzanilla was concerned about the limits of categorization. The big
problems must be articulated and fit into this organization.

To Ms. Keith is seemed like a good model, and perhaps can be used for
future reports. It is also helpful for people trying to make sense of
all the discussions that have occurred over phone calls. It provides a
framework to go forward. We not need to worry about grouping the case
studies before they are written up and categorized. We may have the case
studies in a chapter for each one or all of them in one chapter or in
appendices. It is how you weave the lessons learned into the bigger
pictures that are the innovation discussions.

Dr. Austin was asked to put the framework together, and she is willing
to write her case studies. She suggested that when people present their
cases, they should state whether they intend to write up the case. It
would also be good to think about how long a project has been in
operation. If we bring that out in our cases, we won’t overstate
something that we think is going to work, but in another year proves to
be a disaster. Maybe the report could have a section of future
innovations that might be a good idea for the Border.

Ms. Wolf hoped everyone could agree on the structure proposed in the
framework and whether the type of data we want for the case study. Then
types of data can be considered when we are reviewing cases.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano noted that there are innovative projects across the
nation, but the highlight here is the conditions of the border region
and what makes the border region or a particular project within the
Border region unique. We need to know what makes the case study
innovative within the Border region. How is cleaning up a river in New
Mexico different from cleaning up one in Pennsylvania?

Mr. Dorsey thought it important to go through the case studies from the
standpoint of what specificity to the Border, but he was unclear how to
define Border-specific.

Regardless of innovation, Mr. Manzanilla saw more opportunities working
in this bi-national setting to address some severe problems that other
parts of the country do not face.

Ms. Wolf suggested that the introduction be more than the introduction,
and explain not just what is innovative, but say why it is innovative.

Ms. Grijalva saw a problem because, first, pollution has to be
demonstrated. That is, there has to be a reason to prevent a particular
type of pollution. You have to have an underlying problem. Then you can
demonstrate why you need to do this and what is innovative about it.

Ms. Keith thought it might be good to make sure that we have at least
one case study for each strategy. Maybe some can be combined, e.g.,
similar studies in different states.

Ms. Marin recalled last year’s Border of Governors’ Worktable on
Science and Technology, where they reported on resources along the
Border. We need to consider, not only the amount of resources in the
Border region, but also the significant challenges and problems, how we
deal with them, and the innovations needed to solve those problems. And,
while we state the problems, we need to look at the great things that
are taking place and how these projects and how these strategies are
furthering the effort to solve them.

Mr. Niemeyer did not think the word “strategy” was a term to get
locked into. He thought the group should just discuss projects and how
they should be categorized.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano thought the purpose now was for those who presented
a possible case, to discuss it. Asking questions would give an overview
of the possibilities or options, and those discussions will facilitate
selection. It is important to have the opportunity to discuss your
selections and what makes them innovative.

Mr. Joyce stated that in this section of the agenda, people would give a
two-minute presentation of the case they suggested, why they suggested
it, and the key points. Going through the entire list, it would become
clear that some cases are not pertinent to the points we want to make.
Then the discussion will concentrate on the ones that are left, and the
case studies will come from that subset. The initial data and
information is going to form the real crux of the report, the ultimate
recommendations that will tie all this together. These case studies are
essential because they illustrate particular cases where environmental
problems have been addressed on the Border using innovative approaches.
Whoever volunteers to be on the work groups to draft these case studies
will gather that information together and that will be used to make the
recommendation section of the final report.

Dr. Ganster concluded that there is agreement that the framework as
presented, with some modification, is suitable to everyone and that it
provides a basis for moving forward. Now, members need to go through the
list and briefly present their cases, pointing out whether they are
willing to participate actively. If they are not willing to carry it
forward, we cannot consider the case now.

Selection of Case Studies and Formation of Drafting Teams

Mr. Gillen:  Rubber Manufacturers Association. The presentation in
Washington should be one of the case studies because it is a good
example of where an industry voluntarily did something that was good for
the environment. Mr. Joyce reported that Dr. Ganster believes he has
enough information to draft a case study on that.

Dr. Brown:  Renewable energy. Referring to Dr. Sweedler’s presention,
he is convinced that this is a critical area with tremendous potential,
and he is willing to do the research.

Ms. Keith:  Diesel emission school bus retrofit. This project is not
unique to the border and should be dropped.

Dr. Austin:  Biodiesel capacity building. In terms of innovation, the
idea is to take restaurants’ waste vegetable oil and that from the
maquiladoras. Because of the maquiladoras, border communities have large
volumes of waste vegetable oil. In production of biodiesel farm fuel,
waste vegetable oil is not unique to the border and not innovative, but
it is innovative in terms of partnerships—it involves departments from
both countries. Mexico has an issue about competing with Penex in the
sale of fuel, but the project is voluntary. It probably also has a role
in education and outreach. Dr. Austin is willing to do the work to
develop it, but the project is not very far along. The Instituto
Tecnológico de Nogales has converted a lab and is making biodiesel to
run their buses. That, in and of itself, is not unique, but it does
address both air quality of the diesel fuel vehicles and the reuse of
vegetable oil.

Ms. Keith:  Arizona–Mexico International Green Organization. AMIGO was
developed to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated by the
maquiladoras because the waste is U. S. owned and has to come back to
the United States. It is an example of partnerships increasing technical
knowledge and fostering networking, communities, and environmental
stewardship and an example of how to increase exposure for pollution
activities. Dr. Austin thought this might fit into a suite of
discussions of ways to inform people about what the laws are and getting
people comply with them where resources are insufficient to enforce
them.

Dr. Austin:  AMIGO fibrous concrete. A material has come out of the
AMIGO program—fibrous concrete, which is 50 to 80% recycled paper.
That is mixed with water and then sand, ash, and concrete. A house in
Nogales, Sonora, has been built with it, and it has a very high thermal
mass. The maquiladoras have been involved in the work. They calculated
that with just the waste going to the landfill—not counting anything
that is being pulled aside for recycling—you could build a house every
three weeks in Nogales and remove that paper from the landfill. Mr.
Niemeyer said the unique aspect of the AMIGO program is that it is a
bi-national recognition program for maquiladoras in Mexico. The
governors of both Arizona and Senora handed out the award. Ms. Keith
added environment management system training to the maquiladoras as a
Border training or cross-cultural training course.

Ms. Wolf:  Promotora model. This project trains women in the community
to work with businesses to reduce pollution and change practices in the
businesses. So far, they have gone to 173 businesses—primarily auto
repair shops, print shops, and nail salons—and 49% are participating
in some pollution-prevention activity within three months. And, results
are measurable:  nail shops have switched from using acetone to a
different type of polish remover; auto shops have switched from solvent
degreasers to water degreasers. Getting them the women the training and
the confidence they needed to go to work with the businesses was
probably the biggest struggle we have had with the program. It is
innovative as far as partnerships because we work with the University of
Arizona and the regulatory agencies to get technical training, and it is
innovative in achieving voluntary reductions in pollutants in these
communities.

Mr. Dorsey:  Automotive industry in Tijuana. When he was Chief of the
Hazardous Material Division, they received a USEPA grant to do green
business outreach to the automotive industry in Tijuana, and they worked
with the Tijuana Chamber of Commerce. This could help pull that
information together.

Dr. Ganster:  For two years, he has studied the flow of used tires from
California to Baja California that resulted in the accumulation of huge
numbers of scrap tires in Mexico. Border 2012 has done terrific work on
cleaning up the residual piles, but the causes of the formation of the
piles have not been addressed. What kinds of solutions are there over
the long term that would prevent the piles from accumulating in Mexican
communities? Mr. Dorsey believed that recently USEPA and the State of
California set aside over $1 million to work on this issue with Mexico.
Mr. Gillen agreed with the importance of such a project. Dr. Ganster
thought a public–private partnership would resolve this issue; it
cannot be done in a regulatory way. We have to figure out what the
economics and economic incentives are; then it will be resolved. But
that is the innovative aspect, and this is clearly a Border problem
because the Border is what is driving this flow of materials.

Ms. Marin:  Fuel cell applications in wastewater treatment. This is an
innovative use of fuel cells and fuel cell applications are seldom seen
in the Border area. And it is a pretty innovative idea to power
wastewater treatment plants. Mr. Manzanilla could see some
applicability—it all fits under the rubric of innovation towards
better sustainability. Ms. Grijalva thought Ms. Marin’s volunteer
writers should stress the applicability to the Border.

Mr. Dorsey:  Construction, demolition, and inert recycling facilities.
In California, we have a 50% diversion and we are heading possibly to a
75% diversion from landfills to recycling because of ordinances that
require construction and demolition materials to be recycled. He is
willing to work on this case. Dr. Ganster added that Tijuana is really
getting interested in solid waste management; they have the same issues
and there is a history of a bi-national recyclables market, so there
might be a good trans-Border connection there.

Mr. Dorsey:  Biofuels. An entrepreneur who had an egg ranch in the
county recently purchased 120 acres in the valley where he is growing
sugarcane to create biofuel similar to what they are doing in Brazil.
This is unique to the Border area. California Energy and Resource and
Development Commission, in 2005, started looking into this and there is
supposedly a tax break and other incentives. Mr. Joyce thought sugarcane
required a lot of water. Mr. Dorsey said, yes, the man pays $17 an
acre-foot for water per year (which is cheap water), but sugarcane needs
no fertilizer, so it is cheap to grow. Mr. Gillen heard that people in
Canada are using switch grass for biofuel, which apparently takes less
water and gives more fiber. Dr. Austin:  In Louisiana, where they grow a
lot of sugarcane, they are discussing using the bagasse for biofuel and
still producing sugar from the cane. So, it is certainly not unique.
Furthermore, sugarcane is a very inefficient producer of biofuel.

Ms. Marin:  Hazardous waste prevention. This has to do with the training
similar to the promotoras project. Mr. Dorsey recalled similar projects
in Tijuana, which might tie in nicely; he offered to coordinate that.
Dr. Ganster:  A lot of their training is aimed at small- and
medium-sized companies, which have special problems because they don’t
have full-time environmental managers, so they have to do training at
night because they can’t leave their businesses during the day. A
whole set of training issues seems to be emerging that could be pulled
together.

Mr. Connolly:  Campo Kumeyaay Nation wind energy project. There are
several projects on the Indian Reservations in the Border zone, but
because he was unsuccessful in getting submissions, he will submit wind
project he mentioned. This project is the largest wind energy project on
a reservation in the United States. It is also the only commercial-scale
wind project in San Diego County. It has been going on since the first
wind-energy studies in 1990, so a part of the write up will include a
discussion of the long-term energy policy and its inconsistencies in the
United States and how that has both inspired and impeded these types of
projects. These types of projects are considerably influenced by state
and federal incentives. This particular project was a revenue producer
for a low-income community. It also addresses reduction of carbon
emissions and it highlights some of the obstacles for these types of
facilities, not only on Indian reservations, but throughout the country.
It is also the closest wind farm to the Border. Dr. Ganster thought it
illustrated connected energy systems in the Border region, certainly a
key part of the alternative and renewable fuels.

Ms. Spener:  New River Wetlands Project. This trans-boundary water is
polluted in Mexico when it comes into the United States. The project
addresses a solution that can be done in the United States, and a
solution that provides effective treatment, at least for some of the
indicators like fecal coliform, as well as providing habitat. They have
six years of data; Ms. Spener offered to develop the case study.

Dr. Austin:  Eco Park, Tijuana. They basically take the waste
black-water from colonias and treat it on site, and they have created a
huge park in the middle of Tijuana that might go with the theme of
alternative ways of treating wastewater. It is a Mexican project that
has implications for a U. S. watershed that comes across the U. S.
border. Dr. Ganster said that that project had actually started on the
U. S. side, got kicked off of IBWC land, and was eventually
reconfigured; there is a long and twisted history to it. They may not
have real monitoring data, but it might fit in. That brings up the whole
issue of the effectiveness of the types of treatments and the issue of
decentralized treatment versus centralized treatment.

Ms. Siwik:  Solar energy. This was a partnership between New Mexico
State University and Southwest Environmental Center where they installed
the photovoltaic (PV) unit on the roof of their building, which they
will be metering. The other thing about this project is that there is an
environmental education component so that the students at New Mexico
State have the opportunity to learn how to install these systems.
Secondary schools were incorporated so the kids learned how to use GPS
units. Similarly, New Mexico State is taking a leadership role at the
Institute for Energy and the Environment, demonstrating commercialized
clean-energy technologies that can be replicated. New Mexico State has a
PV system on top of a parking structure at the Health Clinic, which
provides electricity, powering lights, saving energy, and reducing
pollution. The Albuquerque project does not occur at the Border, but it
could be replicated in the Border region.

Dairy to biomass. This is another innovative project that uses a
two-stage anaerobic bio-fermentation process to reduce dairy waste and
then produces methane gas that is used for power. They use that compost
at a greenhouse. It, too, has applicability for other areas of the
Border. A number of dairies in New Mexico are doing this.

Performance energy contracting in schools and public facilities. This is
happening around the country, but it provides the resources to do that
in low-income communities and provides a cost savings to schools and
municipalities in the Border region, and it could be replicated.

Ride share program. Mobile sources are obviously a huge contributor to
air quality pollution. Las Cruces Ride Share Programs are successful. It
is happening around the country, but again it can be expanded to the
Border region. Dr. Ganster asked whether there has been any organized,
bi-national ride-share programs along the Border; Ms. Siwik find out.

Education.  We are having much success in combining environmental
education and real-life experience through our projects, e.g., the scrap
tire project in Palomas and Ascension. School children went into the
field and located scrap tire piles using GPS. In their computer labs,
they learned how to use GIS systems to map the location of tire piles.
Then, back in the field and they helped collect the tires.

Ms. Stone:  Dairy wastewater reuse project. Dairies use a great deal of
water. A private company is converting dairy wastewater into clean,
usable water, and the State of New Mexico is supporting it.

Truck stop electrification. New Mexico has joined California and other
states in the clean cars initiative and is considering truck stop
electrification to reduce air emissions. Tractor trailers would plug
into electrical outlets at facilities around the state to reduce air
emissions.

Tire Recycling Grant Programs. The New Mexico Environment Department
recently gave a grant to Akima Pueblo where they converted used tires
into an athletic field.

Meth lab clean-up initiatives. New Mexico may be the first state to
require home owners to disclose when a property was used as a meth lab.

Mr. Elbrock: Reduced school week. Animas School went to a four-day
school week, which immediately resulted in a 20% reduction in pollution
and energy use for heating and cooling of the school buildings and
running the school buses. Animas has a 72-mile school bus route, so it
really cut down on the diesel fuel use. But, there was a lot of
opposition to it, and they will probably go back to a five-day school
week. It could be a cross-Border initiative.

Mr. Niemeyer:  Micro-grids—colonias using renewable energy. Texas
Engineering Experiment Station (TEEXA) is testing using micro-grids, a
variety of renewable energy—biodiesel, wind, and solar—for some
remote colonias that have no easy way to get power. If the test on one
colonia works in just a few households, it will be expanded to others.
Some 400,000 people live in colonias on the Texas–Mexico Border. This
is a public–private partnership using an EPA grant, and money is being
passed through to TEEXS.

Water quality. In a storage pool for farmers in the lower Rio Grande
Valley, we have a real-time surface-water quality monitor. Just upstream
is a salt drain from Mexico that could affect salinity. The salinity
levels are critical to the farmers because if the salinity in the river
is too high, irrigating with the water will kill the crops.

Bahia Grande Restoration Partnership. Years ago when they built the
boundary ship channel, they cut off some of the water supplied to this
area, so the whole Bahia Grande turned into a dry land. A number of
people with various interests established a partnership and over a
number of years, they studied the area, got water to it, and restored
the wetlands. This project also a Texas Environmental Excellence Awards.

The world’s largest inland desal plant. El Paso needs water. They have
brackish water, so the city of El Paso partnered with Fort Bliss to
desalinate 27.5 million gallons of this water. It is the world’s
largest inland desal plant. After they treat the water, they dispose of
it in an isolated formation so it won’t go anywhere; our agency had to
approve that permit. And they created a teaching center, the Carlos
Ramirez H2O Tech Center.

Site Assistance Visits. The twin plant on the U.S. side was basically
just a warehouse. We got permission from the Mexican Environmental
Enforcement Agency (PROFEPA).

Great Border Trade-out. Under a Border 2012 grant we held workshops at a
number of these auto-body shops. They were using spray guns to paint in
auto-body shops; the paint volatilized readily and contributed to the
ozone formation. So we gave them these high-vapor, low-pressure guns and
destroyed the old ones. And we have quantifiable data to show what we
accomplished. We worked with our small business unit and demonstrated to
the body-shop owners how to do it and how it works, and these guys
signed off on the project.

Brick Kiln Project. El Paso Electric needed to reduce their NOx
emissions to reduce 1000 tons and had no way of trading. (In 1999,
legislation permitted emissions trading and banking in Texas;
unfortunately, there was no one in El Paso with whom to trade, as in
Dallas and Houston.) They passed legislation allowing not only for
trans-boundary pollutant trading, but cross-pollutant trading. That is
to say, for example, El Paso Electric could trade their NOx for carbon
monoxide and particulate matter. They built brick kilns developed by a
New Mexico State researcher and they quantified how much they would get
in reductions. They have since built 32 brick kilns; when they built the
new ones, they destroyed the old kilns.

Fuel cell applications and wastewater treatment plants. This is a
California project (page 4).

Site assistance visit program. We have done this at a number of
maquiladoras in the Border region; we stopped in 2003, but they still
send us their data. They would go on-site with the PROFEPA
representative (the plants were nervous at first) and tour the plant
looking for ways they could minimize waste, save water, save energy. At
the end, they have a brief talk with management. PROFEPA (after a while)
was happy with this program. They come back and make recommendations.

Landfill biogas project.  Getting methane to market is happening
everywhere, including Mexico, but Administrator Johnson mentioned this
specifically at our last meeting and talked about dedicating a new
plant.

Summary

Dr. Ganster summarized:  We have 24 cases; we need five or six case
studies and the framework. Ms. Wolf grouped the cases into four
areas—energy, materials, recycling (including scrap tires and inert
materials at the landfill, and the necessary training), and treatment
(including wastewater treatment and the wetlands). We have generated
many new ideas and I am not quite sure how to proceed. One possibility
might be to produce a template where we ask people who are willing to
advocate for a project to fill it in and send it to us so we can
distribute it for everyone’s review.

Dr. Brown asked how we get our bundles of innovations lined up with the
case studies. Energy use and resource efficiencies were one group of
ideas. The second was training and outreach programs concerning small
businesses. The third was solid waste recycling and diversion, which
bundles many things. And the last was treatment ideas and the two
thrusts that came up were wetlands and the dairies in reducing
wastewater and recycling. What might be useful is to task teams today to
sign up for those four groups and let those groups start getting ideas
and cases together. We have lots of good ideas and more will come. I
think we need that framework to hang these ideas on. And, Ms. Wolf
added, we agreed on the framework.

Dr. Austin suggested that people develop the case studies; perhaps
specific cases could be discussed in the appendices. Now we need people
to collect data and present it, maybe much earlier than September 1.

Dr. Ganster is skeptical about appendices because he thinks people will
not read them. He thinks the main ideas should be in the main body of
the text—appendices are a convenient way to dump a huge amount of
material you don’t want to have to process. Also, the report should
not be too long.

Mr. Gillen thought some of the stories could be presented as boxed text,
which would lead readers to information elsewhere. Dr. Ganster agreed
that was a good mechanism. Another would be to revise the template,
taking into account what was discussed. Then the template could be sent
to people and they could apply the template to the case studies they
were advocating, making sure that they have everything that is needed,
and then resubmitting them. We will have to have a conference call to
discuss the material when we are a little further along and people have
gone over these ideas to see if they are really practical. Maybe that is
the stage where somebody will say this is a good idea, not enough
material, but we know there was something from Mexicali or from
California or Texas, and it can be reconfigured as a collective case
study.

Mr. Joyce thought the problem the board runs into every year is that a
few people end up putting in a lot of time late in the process to finish
the report. The intent this time was to start early to avoid that. We
need to produce the real crux of the report, which is the
recommendation.

Dr. Ganster thought the problem is that, in the packet we intended to
have a complete listing and description of the projects we were going to
consider. But that is not so, because we have a number of other things
that need to be added (basically because Chris didn’t do his homework,
to quote him). So I think that, although this has been a very helpful
discussion, we are still where we were some time ago. We need more
information from every area along the Border.

Ms. Wolf added that we will eventually need to revise the framework, but
the section of the framework that deals with the structure of the case
study has not changed. So people can go back and get the data for each
section of the framework, write that up, and submit it in two or three
weeks. When we get all of those, we can distribute them; people may send
them to me, and I will group them based on the four groups. Then, we
form a committee or work group for each of the sections and let each
work group go through the case studies, which are now in a standard
format. Dr. Brown though Ms. Wolf’s approach excellent because state
teams will get data on projects they know about in their region. What
was successful when they compiled and wrote the tenth report was finally
settling into those work groups. After that the conference calls were
shorter with fewer people, and it was easier to put people on the spot
for things they said they would do.

Dr. Austin thought there were two options. She agreed with Ms. Wolf’s
organizational suggestion, but an exemplary case would be much stronger
if it referenced several other examples of similar projects. The cases
reviewed today do not give a balance across the four areas.

Ms. Cedeño-Zambrano asserted that one thing that should be worked out
today is establishing a date for people to submit their case studies.
Mr. DeLeon offered five quick points to help move things forward:

The framework is good.

We have identified to some extent the universal cases, some with the
add-ons.

Revisions according to the established framework should be submitted by
July 14.

We should have a conference call the week of July 21 to decide the final
groupings.

Finally, we need to have everyone participate, even those who did not
suggest a case study.

If we establish work groups by state, it would be easy to know who
submitted the projects and members of the work group. We cannot go
another 30 or 60 days not knowing who is on a work group and who will be
helping with submitted the projects. Mr. Joyce thought the state
grouping was an artificial distinction. That was just the way we
originally categorized the things that came in. It wasn’t meant to be
a state-by-state competition. Mr. Dorsey agreed that the arrangement by
state probably would not work.

Public Comments

None were given.

El Paso Public Meeting Discussion—Next Steps

Dr. Ganster thought, in terms of the work groups, probably a single
person would write each case study, but that person will probably work
with others. If anyone wants help from others who are interested, they
can round that up. And, if you are interested in a topics, you should
let the person who is heading that topic know so you can participate.
Perhaps Mr. Niemeyer would work with me, as well as do his specific
topic.

Ms. Wolf was willing to take the lead on the training and the small
businesses cases. Mr. Dorsey will be involved in two projects, assisting
Ms. Wolf and writing up the construction/demolition/inert process. If
anybody is interested, he will gladly accept assistance.

Ms. Keith said she would have her staff write up cases she thought
should go forward.

Dr. Brown liked the idea of having a work group established today. He
summarized:   energy and resource efficiencies as a topical bundle,
training outreach programs concerning small businesses as the second,
solid waste and recycling and diversion is the third, and treatment
ideas including wetlands and dairies as the fourth. The four work groups
together will flesh out the case studies in those groups instead of
everyone doing it individually.

Ms. Grijalva saw the work groups working on a chapter in the report, so
a work group fleshes out that chapter, not necessarily the case studies,
because case study would be assigned to the individual who submitted it.
That group is going to have to take those nuggets out of those case
studies and weave them into the story.

Mr. Dorsey didn’t think the groups were fully formed yet, but he saw
the need to flesh out the projects. If people are interested in a topic,
they should get in touch with the person who introduced the topic. When
we come together on the 14th and decide which topics to use, we can
define the work groups.

Dr. Ganster thought the members needed to get these case studies
reconfigured so that they fit the agreed-upon format, then they will
fall naturally into these groupings. So the first step is to write those
up, get them in, and then we can put them into the suggested groupings.
Then we need to have a conference call to decide which of the case
studies, which of the groupings, and who is doing what at that point.
But from now until the 14th it is really individuals taking things they
are interested in, putting them in the proper format, and getting them
out.

Ms. Spener suggested scheduling a conference call for next week to get
it on the calendar. After that, we get into the fourth of July holiday.
She proposed the 25, 26, or 27 of June. Mr. Joyce agreed. There is a
working group, a planning committee, for the El Paso meeting. He thought
scheduling a conference call was one of the first things to be dealt
with, starting with those three dates.

Mr. DeLeon suggested Friday the 11th or Friday the 18th.

Dr. Ganster thought decisions on which cases to use and how they will be
grouped could be made the week of July 21. He asked Ms. Wolf to help
write something up that could be sent to the others.

Adjourn

El Paso Meeting, September 24–25, 2008

Appendix 1.  Meeting Participants

Nongovernmental, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

Paul Ganster, PhD, Chair

Jerry C. Agan*

Diane Austin, PhD

Christopher P. Brown, PhD

Michael L. Connolly

Michael P. Dorsey

Edward Elbrock

Gary Gillen

Susan Keith

Patti Krebs*

Rosario Marin

Stephen M. Niemeyer, PE

Luis E. Ramírez Thomas, MSFS*

Allyson Siwik

Marissa Stone

Ann Marie A. Wolf

John Wood

Federal Members of the Board

Department of Agriculture

Rosendo Treviño III*

Department of Commerce

[currently vacant]

Department of Health and Human Services

Marilyn DiSirio*

Department of Homeland Security

Gary Robinson*

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Shannon H. Sorzano

Department of the Interior

James Stefanov*

Department of State

Daniel D. Darrach*

Department of Transportation

Linda L. Lawson*

Environmental Protection Agency

Enrique Manzanilla [for Laura Yoshii]

International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section

Carlos Marin

Designated Federal Officer

Lorena R. Cedeño-Zambrano

Resource Specialists

Candice Abinanti*

Lana Corrales, MPH*

Silvia Grijalva

Rafael Guerrero

Rachel Poynter*

Christina Machion Quilaqueo*

Jeff Scott*

Sally Spener

EPA Regional Office Contacts

Hector F. Aguirre*

Joy Campbell*

Rafael DeLeon

Mark Joyce

Carlos Rincon*

Tomas Torres

Speakers & others

Marie Barrett

Christopher Brown (CA)

Victor Carrillo

Tina Forester

Brad Poiriez

Susan Muza

Alan Sweedler

Steven Roeder

Rod Watkins

Good Neighbor Environmental Board, June 18–19, 2008
     PAGE  34

Audio Associates

301-577-5882


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 27, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-18932

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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

Application of US AIRWAYS, INC. (US AIRWAYS) filed 8/1/06 for:

XX  Renewal of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between any point or points in the United States, and regional airports
in the United Kingdom directly and via intermediate points, and beyond
the United Kingdom to any point or points in third countries.  US
Airways further requests renewal of any necessary exemption authority in
order to engage in code-sharing arrangements with British Midland
Airways Limited (bmi).

Applicant rep: Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy H. Cooper
<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted renewal request (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Amended Notice of Action Taken dated June 2, 2006, in the present
docket, to extend the   duration of US Airways’ exemption authority
amended in that Notice from June 2, 2008, to

October 27, 2008, i.e., co-extensive with the other authority being
awarded here

The above action was effective when taken: October 27, 2006, through
October 27, 2008.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

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

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX US Airways’ certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

Conditions: The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond
points is limited to countries with which the United States has signed
open-skies agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds
authority to serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the
Department.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

										  05/2004

 US Airways also applied on behalf of its affiliated carriers, Piedmont
Airlines, Inc. and PSA Airlines, Inc.

 US Airways also requests that the Department consolidate the exemption
authority granted here with the exemption authority granted to US
Airways for purposes of code sharing with bmi’s wholly-owned affiliate
British Midland Regional d/b/a bmi regional (bmi regional).  See Notice
of Action Taken issued June 2, 2006, in the instant docket.


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 30355-30356]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-94]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program 14 CFR Part 150; General
Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program (NCP) submitted by General
Mitchell International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as
``the Act'') and 14 CFR Part 150. These findings are made in
recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal
responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). The General
Mitchell International Airport noise exposure maps were determined by
FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on December 24,
2008. Notice of this determination was published in the Federal
Register on January 15, 2009, Federal Register volume 74, number 10,
page 2645.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 is a local program,
not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    The submitted program contained sixteen proposed actions for noise
mitigation on and off the airport, as applicable. The FAA completed its
review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements
of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied.
    On June 4, 2009, the FAA approved the General Mitchell
International Airport noise compatibility program. Ten of the sixteen
recommendations of the program were approved. Six recommendations were
disapproved at this time.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Minneapolis Airports District Office.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval signed by Deb Roth on June 4, 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 the

General Mitchell International Airport. The Record of Approval also
will be available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/
airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
General Mitchell International Airport noise compatibility program is
June 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation
Administration, Minneapolis Airport District Office, 6020 28th Ave.,
South, Minneapolis, MN 55450, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Documents
reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.

    Dated: June 9, 2009.

    Issued in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Jesse Carriger,
Manager, Minneapolis Airports District Office, FAA Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. E9-14988 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P