[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30343-30345]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2017-1125]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Grounds; Saint Lawrence Seaway, Cape Vincent, New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing, at the request of the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, two separate anchorage
grounds, Carleton Island Anchorage and Tibbetts Point Anchorage, near
Cape Vincent, New York. The Federal Anchorage Ground designations will
enable a pilot to disembark a safely anchored vessel which will help
reduce pilot fatigue, increase pilot availability, and reduce costs
incurred by vessels transiting the Seaway.

DATES: This rule is effective July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-1125 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Jason Radcliffe, Ninth District, Waterways
Operations, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AIS Automatic identification system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is establishing two anchorage grounds, one in the
vicinity of Carleton Island, New York, and the second near Tibbetts
Point, New York. Each area has historically been used as an anchorage
and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, at the request
of its waterway users, has requested each area to be officially
designated as Federal Anchorage Grounds.
    Without this designation, pilots who anchor a ship in the
respective areas are unable to disembark during sustained delay periods
which hinder compliance with rest requirements and complicate pilot
availability and logistics for other vessels. On February 2, 2018, the
Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled
Saint Lawrence Seaway Anchorages (83 FR 4882). The NPRM discussed the
need for the rule and invited the public to comment on the proposed
regulatory action related to this Anchorage Grounds establishment.
During the comment period that ended May 3, 2018, we received two
comments. One comment was not relevant to the proposed rule and the
other comment expressed support of the proposal.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The Coast Guard recognizes the need to establish two anchorage
grounds, one in the vicinity of Carleton Island, New York and the
second near Tibbetts Point, New York. Each area has historically been
used as an anchorage and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, at the request of its waterway users, has requested each
area to be officially designated as Federal Anchorage Grounds.Without
this designation, pilots who anchor a ship in the respective areas are
unable to disembark during sustained delay periods which hinder
compliance with rest requirements and complicate pilot availability and
logistics for other vessels.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published
February 2, 2018. We made no changes to the regulatory text based on
these comments, but we did clarify that our reference to the Captain of
the Port was to the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    This rule establishes two new anchorage areas to be known as
Carleton Island Anchorage and Tibbetts Point Anchorage.
    The Carleton Island Anchorage will be located just northeast and
adjacent to Carleton Island and Millen Bay. The boundaries of Carleton
Island Anchorage are presented in the regulatory text at the end of
this document. The anchorage will be approximately .75 square miles.
Carleton Island Anchorage is primarily intended for use by up-bound
inland or ocean going bulk freight and tank ships, towing vessels and
barges that need to anchor and wait for the availability of a Lake
Ontario Pilot. Under this rule no anchors would be allowed to be placed
in the channel and no portion of the hull or rigging will be allowed to
extend outside the limits of the anchorage area.
    The Tibbetts Point Anchorage will be located just west and adjacent
to Tibbetts Point and Fuller Bay. The boundaries of Tibbett's Point
Anchorage are presented in the regulatory text at the end of this
document. The anchorage will be approximately 1.5 square miles.
Tibbett's Point Anchorage is primarily intended for use by down-bound
inland or ocean going bulk freight and tank ships, towing vessels and
barges that need to anchor and wait for the availability of a River
Pilot. Under this rule no anchors will be allowed to be placed in the
channel and no portion of the hull or rigging will be allowed to extend
outside the limits of the anchorage area.

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.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location and
size of the anchorage grounds, as well as the historical automatic
identification system (AIS) data. The impacts on routine navigation are
expected to be minimal because the anchorage grounds are located
outside the navigational channel. When not occupied, vessels would be
able to maneuver in, around and through the anchorage.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
anchorage grounds 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
the establishment of permanent anchorages near Carleton Island and
Tibbetts Point, New York. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L59(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental

Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-
1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  110.209 to read as follows:

Sec.  110.209   Saint Lawrence Seaway Anchorages, New York.

    (a) Carleton Island Anchorage; Saint Lawrence River, Cape Vincent,
New York--(1) Carleton Island Anchorage Area. The waters bounded by a
line connecting the following points, beginning at 44[deg]11'57.11'' N,
076[deg]14'04.62'' W; thence to 44[deg]11'21.80'' N, 076[deg]14'05.77''
W; thence to 44[deg]11'34.07'' N, 076[deg]15'49.57'' W;
44[deg]11'35.35'' N, 076[deg]16'47.50'' W; 44[deg]11'43.49'' N,
076[deg]16'48.00'' W; 44[deg]11'57.11'' N, 076[deg]14'04.62'' W and
back to the beginning point. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
    (2) Tibbett's Island Anchorage Area. The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following points, beginning at 44[deg]05'20.27'' N,
076[deg]23'25.78'' W; thence to 44[deg]05'21.85'' N, 076[deg]22'40.97''
W; thence to 44[deg]04'34.08'' N, 076[deg]23'09.98'' W;
44[deg]04'07.72'' N, 076[deg]23'33.76'' W; 44[deg]04'32.78'' N,
076[deg]24'43.80'' W; 44[deg]05'44.37'' N, 076[deg]23'56.29'' W;
44[deg]05'20.27'' N, 076[deg]23'25.78'' W and back to the beginning
point. These coordinates are based on WGS 84.
    (b) The regulations. (1) Anchors must not be placed in the Saint
Lawrence Seaway shipping channel. No portion of the hull or rigging may
extend outside the limits of the anchorage area.
    (2) No vessel may occupy any general anchorage described in
paragraph (a) of this section for a period longer than 10 days unless
approval is obtained from the Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) for
that purpose.
    (3) The COTP, or authorized representative, may require vessels to
depart from the Anchorages described in paragraph (a) of this section
before the expiration of the authorized or maximum stay. The COTP, or
authorized representative, will provide at least 12-hour notice to a
vessel required to depart the anchorages.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
J.M. Nunan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-13928 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43962-43964]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16881]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0694; FRL-8823-02-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Ohio
regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. EPA proposed to approve this action on March 9, 2021, and received
no adverse comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0694. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Rachel
Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On March 9, 2021, EPA proposed to approve elements of a SIP
submission from Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of CAA
section 110 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The infrastructure requirements
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's
air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA. An explanation of the CAA requirements,
a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing
approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will
not be restated here.
    The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on April 9,
2021. During the comment period, EPA received 3 comments that covered a
variety of topics including: Support of the proposed action and
questions regarding how EPA ensures that states are complying with the
approved SIP; what other measures beyond the SIP states must follow;
how EPA determines if emissions from one state impact air quality in
another state; and how EPA informs the public of adverse air quality
conditions. All of the comments received are included in the docket for
this action.
    We do not consider these comments to be germane or relevant to the
specifics of this action and therefore not adverse to this action. The
comments lack the required specificity to the proposed SIP revision and
the relevant requirements of CAA section 110. Moreover, none of the
comments address a specific regulation or provision in question, or
recommend a different action on the SIP submission from what EPA
proposed. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving most elements of a submission from Ohio certifying
that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the infrastructure
requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to the 2015
Ozone NAAQS. EPA's final actions for the state's satisfaction of
infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are
contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2015 ozone
                        Element                               NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures........               A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system........               A

(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures......               A
(C)2--Prevention of Significant Deterioration..........               A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant                   NA
 contribution..........................................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interfere with                NA
 maintenance...........................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--prevention of                 A
 significant deterioration.............................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--protect                       A
 visibility............................................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement.               A
(E)1--Adequate resources...............................               A
(E)2--State board requirements.........................               A
(F)1--Monitoring/Testing Source Emissions..............               A
(F)2--Periodic Source Emissions Reports................               A
(F)3--Correlation and Public Availability of Source                   A
 Emissions Reports and Data............................
(G)--Emergency power...................................               A
(H)--Future SIP revisions..............................               A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D.....               *
(J)1--Consultation with government officials...........               A
(J)2--Public notification..............................               A
(J)3--PSD..............................................               A
(J)4--Visibility protection............................               *
(K)--Air quality modeling/data.........................               A
(L)--Permitting fees...................................               A
(M)--Consultation and participation by affected local                 A
 entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A--Approve.
NA--No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
* Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 30, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends title 40 CFR
part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under the
heading ``Infrastructure Requirements'' by adding an entry for
``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS'' immediately after the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                         EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
                                     geographical or
              Title                   non-attainment      State date        EPA approval           Comments
                                           area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Infrastructure Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)               Statewide..........       9/28/2018  8/11/2021, [INSERT   Approved CAA
 infrastructure requirements for                                         Federal Register     elements:
 the 2015 ozone NAAQS.                                                   CITATION].           110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). We are not
                                                                                taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), prongs
                                                                                one and two.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-16881 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

						Served:  April 6, 2004

____________________________________________

NOTICE

Docket OST-2004-17279

____________________________________________

By Order 2004-3-3 the Department instituted the 2004 Hong Kong
Fifth-Freedom All-cargo Frequency Proceeding, to select carriers to
operate 18 available fifth-freedom frequencies for U.S. carrier service
in the Hong Kong fifth-freedom market.  Applications were received from
four carriers:  United Parcel Service (UPS), Federal Express Corporation
(FedEx), Northwest Airlines (Northwest), and Polar Air Cargo (Polar),
seeking a total of 15 frequencies.  Federal Express, Northwest, and
Polar filed applications seeking a total of 9 frequencies for Seoul-Hong
Kong service.  The Memorandum of Understanding permits only 12 weekly
fifth-freedom frequencies in the Seoul-Hong Kong market.  The Department
has allocated 7 of those 12 frequencies on a permanent basis, and thus,
only 5 frequencies are available for Seoul-Hong Kong services.

By Joint Motion, filed April 2, 2004, FedEx, Northwest, and Polar have
proposed that the Department now allocate the five remaining Hong
Kong-Seoul frequencies as follows:  Northwest, 1 frequency; Polar, 1
frequency; and FedEx, 3 frequencies.  The joint movants state that such
allocation will preserve the valuable resources of the Department, will
avoid any unnecessary and protracted proceeding, will promote
competition in the Hong Kong all-cargo market, and will provide the
Department with a mutually agreed upon proposal that will best serve the
public interest.  The joint movants also request that the Department
suspend the procedural timetable set forth in the Order instituting the
proceeding until the Department rules on the joint motion.

In view of the circumstances presented and pending our resolution of the
joint motion for allocation, we are suspending until further notice the
procedural dates established in Order 2004-3-3.  Therefore, acting under
authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.3, we suspend the remaining procedural
dates established in Order 2004-3-3 until further notice.

We will serve this notice by email or facsimile on all parties in Docket
OST-2004-17279.  We authorize answers to be served by facsimile or
email.

						PAUL L. GRETCH

			Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  April 6, 2004

An electronic version of this notice 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

 UPS was the only carrier to seek frequencies for Hong
Kong-Singapore-Macapagal service.  On March 24, 2004, and supplemented
March 29, 2004, UPS filed a motion for immediate allocation of
frequencies and dismissal from the proceeding.  By Notice of Action
Taken dated March 31, 2004, the Department granted UPS’ motion,
allocated UPS 6 Hong Kong fifth-freedom frequencies, and dismissed it
from the remainder of the proceeding.

In the applications filed, FedEx seeks 5 frequencies; Northwest, 1
frequency; and Polar, 3 frequencies.


[Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 74516-74517]
[DOCID:fr12de06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission,
Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

December 5, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2242-078.
    c. Date Filed: November 24, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Eugene Water and Electric Board.
    e. Name of Project: Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the McKenzie River in Lane and Linn Counties, near
McKenzie Bridge, Oregon. The project occupies approximately 560 acres
of the Willamette National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Randy L. Berggren, General Manager, Eugene
Electric and Water Board, 500 East 4th Avenue, P.O. Box 10148, Eugene,
OR 97440,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Bob Easton,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Cooperating agencies: We are asking Federal, state, local, and
tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect
to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing such requests
described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the
Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of
the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ] 61,076
(2001).
    k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: January 23, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency
status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project consists of two
developments, the Carmen development and the Trail Bridge development.
The Carmen development includes: (1) A 25-foot-high, 2,100-foot-long,
and 10-foot-wide earthen Carmen diversion dam with a concrete weir
spillway, (2) a 11,380-foot-long by 9.5-foot-diameter concrete Carmen
diversion tunnel located on the right abutment of the spillway, (3) a
235-foot-high, 1,100-foot-long, and 15-foot-wide earthen Smith
diversion dam with a gated Ogee spillway, (4) a 7,275-foot-long by 13.5
foot-diameter concrete-lined Smith power tunnel, (5) a 1,160-foot-long
by 13-foot-diameter steel underground Carmen penstock, (6) a 86-foot-
long by 79-foot-wide Carmen powerhouse, (7) two Francis turbines each
with a generating capacity of 52.25 megawatts (MW) for a total capacity
of 104.50 MW, (8) a 19-mile, 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that
connects the Carmen powerhouse to the Bonneville Power Administration's
Cougar-Eugene transmission line, and (9) appurtenant facilities.
    The Trail Bridge development includes: (1) A 100-foot-high, 700-
foot-long, and 24-foot-wide earthen Trail Bridge dam section with a
gated Ogee spillway, (2) a 1,000-foot-long and 20-foot-wide emergency
spillway section, (3) a 300-foot-long by 12-foot-diameter concrete
penstock at the intake that narrows to a diameter of 7 feet, (4) a 66-
foot-long by 61-foot-wide Trail Bridge powerhouse, (5) one Kaplan
turbine with a generating capacity of 9.975 MW, and (6) a one-mile,
11.5-kV distribution line that connects the Trail Bridge powerhouse to
the Carmen powerhouse.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Oregon
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by Sec.  106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR, at Sec.  800.4.

    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)..  January 2007.
Issue Acceptance Letter.................  April 2007.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments...  May 2007.
Hold Scoping Meetings...................  June 2007.
Request Additional Information (if        August 2007.
 necessary).
Issue Scoping Document 2................  August 2007.
Notice of application is ready for        August 2007.
 environmental analysis.
Notice of the availability of the draft   February 2008.
 EA.
Initiate 10(j) process (if necessary)...  April 2008.
Notice of the availability of the final   August 2008.
 EA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21071 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 226 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67744-67745]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25914]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-251, OMB Control No. 3235-0256]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, Extension: Form F-3

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form F-3 (17 CFR 239.33) is used by foreign issuers to register
securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.). The information collected is intended to ensure that the
information required to be filed by the Commission permits verification
of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability of such information. Form F-3 takes approximately 157.84
hours per response and is filed by approximately 113 respondents. We
estimate that 25% of the 157.84 hours per response (39.46 hours) is
prepared by the registrant for a total annual reporting burden of 4,459
hours (39.46 hours per response x 113 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending
an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 23, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25914 Filed 11-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47835-47838]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19719]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008; FRL-9715-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As part of
this renewal, EPA is consolidating the following ICRs: OMB Control
Number 2050-0179 (Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts
for Superfund Response Actions), OMB Control Number 2050-0095
(Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System), and OMB Control
Number 2050-0096 (National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP)). The first ICR (OMB Control Number 2050-0179)
is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2013. Before submitting the ICR
to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2004-0008, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221 T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2004-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Knudsen, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Assessment and Remediation Division, (5204 P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 703-
603-9102; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

For the Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for
Superfund Response Actions ICR

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
states, federally-recognized Indian tribes and tribal consortia, and
political subdivisions which apply to EPA for financial assistance
under a Superfund cooperative agreement or a Superfund State Contract.
    Title: Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for
Superfund Response Actions (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1487.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0179.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
28, 2013. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR authorizes the collection of information under
40 CFR part 35, subpart O, which establishes

the administrative requirements for cooperative agreements funded under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) for State, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments,
and political subdivision response actions. This regulation also
codifies the administrative requirements for Superfund State Contracts
for non-State lead remedial responses. This regulation includes only
those provisions mandated by CERCLA, required by OMB Circulars, or
added by EPA to ensure sound and effective financial assistance
management under this regulation. The information is collected from
applicants and/or recipients of EPA assistance and is used to make
awards, pay recipients, and collect information on how federal funds
are being utilized. EPA requires this information to meet its federal
stewardship responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to
obtain a benefit (federal funds) under 40 CFR part 31, ``Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to
State and Local Governments'' and under 40 CFR part 35, ``State and
Local Assistance.'' An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.38
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 568.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
1.7.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 4,189.
    Estimated total annual costs: $128,467. (This includes only the
estimated burden cost of $128,467 and no costs for capital investment
or maintenance and operational costs.)

For the Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System ICR

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
those state agencies, Indian tribes, and U.S. territories performing
Superfund site evaluation activities.
    Title: Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1488.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0095.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2015.
    Abstract: Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980 and 1986) amends the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) to include
criteria prioritizing releases throughout the U.S. before undertaking
remedial action at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) is a model that is used to evaluate the relative
threats to human health and the environment posed by actual or
potential releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants. The HRS criteria take into account the population at
risk, the hazard potential of the substances, as well as the potential
for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human contact,
destruction of sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources
affecting the human food chain, contamination of surface water used for
recreation or potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient
air.
    EPA regional offices work with states to determine those sites for
which the state will conduct the Superfund site evaluation activities
and the HRS scoring. The states are reimbursed 100 percent of their
costs, except for record maintenance.
    Under this ICR, the states will apply the HRS by identifying and
classifying those releases or sites that warrant further investigation.
The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to
determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund-financed remedial actions.
    HRS scores are derived from the sources described in this
information collection, including conducting field reconnaissance,
taking samples at the site, and reviewing available reports and
documents. States record the collected information on HRS documentation
worksheets and include this in the supporting reference package.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average
213.85 hours per response. EPA estimates 60 states, Indian tribes, and
U.S. territories will likely respond, each averaging 9-10 actions per
year. The total burden for all respondents is estimated at 121,681
hours and approximately $11,238,970 each year (based on historic data
on estimated costs per site assessment activity).
    The current ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 60.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
9.5.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 121,681 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $11,238,970. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $11,238,970 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

For the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) ICR

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
state/tribal governments and individual community members who
voluntarily participate in

the remedial phase of the Superfund program and in associated community
involvement activities throughout the Superfund process.
    Title: National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1463.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0096.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31,
2015.
    Abstract: This Information Collection Request is a renewal ICR that
covers the remedial portion of the Superfund program, as specified in
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). All remedial actions
covered by this ICR (e.g., remedial investigations/feasibility studies)
are stipulated in the statute (CERCLA) and are instrumental in the
process of cleaning up National Priorities List (NPL) sites to be
protective of human health and the environment. Some community
involvement activities covered by this ICR are not required at every
site (e.g., Technical Assistance Grants) and depend very much on the
community and the nature of the site and cleanup. All community
activities seek to involve the public in the cleanup of the sites, gain
the input of community members, and include the community's perspective
on the potential future reuse of Superfund NPL sites. Community
involvement activities can enhance the remedial process and increase
community acceptance and the potential for productive and beneficial
reuse of the sites.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 13.84
hours per response.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 11,659.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: As
required.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 179,615 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $813,440. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $261,440 for states and an estimated cost of $552,000
for communities.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 6, 2012.
Bruce Means,
Acting Director, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2012-19719 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  ADVANCE \y 63 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

									November 27, 2007

Mr. James Sydnor, Director

Air Division

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1105

Richmond, VA 23218  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Dear Mr. Sydnor:

	On October 29, 2007, EPA received a revision to the Virginia State
Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality pertaining to the federally enforceable state operating permit,
which contains terms and conditions for the control of emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the Kraft Food Global,
Inc—Richmond Bakery located in Henrico County, Virginia.  The purpose
of the submittal is to meet the requirements for Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT). EPA has determined that the submittal is
administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to
prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

	If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Irene Shandruk, Air Quality Planning Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  She is
the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

						/s/

					   Judith M. Katz, Director

                          			   Air Protection Division  (3AP00)

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber
and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 61793-61795]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63016; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Amend FINRA
Rule 8210 to Require Information Provided via Portable Media Device be
Encrypted

September 29, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On June 2, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA
Rule 8210 to require that information provided via portable media
device to FINRA in response to a request under the rule be encrypted.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 25, 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62318 (June 17,
2010), 75 FR 36461 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received eleven comment letters on the proposal.\4\
FINRA responded to these comment letters in a letter dated September
14, 2010.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See letter from David M. Sobel, Esq., EVP/CCO, Abel/Noser
Corp., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 6,
2010 (``Abel/Noser Letter''); letter from Larry Taunt, Chief
Executive Officer, Regal Financial Group, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated July 7, 2010 (``Regal Letter''); letter
from Lisa Roth, NAIBD Member Advocacy Committee Chair, CEO/CCO,
National Association of Independent Broker-Dealers, Inc., to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 9, 2010
(``NAIBD Letter''); letter from Chris Charles, President, Wulff,
Hansen, & Co., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
July 13, 2010 (``Wulff Hansen Letter''); letter from Tamara K.
Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel, Investment Company Institute, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 14, 2010
(``ICI Letter''); letter from Byron ``Pat'' Treat, President/CEO,
Great Nation Investment Corporation, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated July 15, 2010 (``Great Nation
Letter''); letter from Eric Segall, Sr. V.P., Manager, Business
Conduct, and Edward W. Wedbush, President, Wedbush Securities, Inc.,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 15, 2010
(``Wedbush Letter''); letter from Raymond C. Holland, Vice-Chairman,
Triad Securites Corp., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 15, 2010 (``Triad Letter I''); letter from
Sis DeMarco, Director of Compliance, Triad Securities Corp., to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated July 15, 2010
(``Triad Letter II''); letter from S. Kendrick Dunn, Assistant Vice
President, Pacific Select Distributors, Inc. to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Commission, dated July 16, 2010 (``PSD Letter''); and
letter from Howard Spindel, Senior Managing Director, Integrated
Management Solutions, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated July 16, 2010 (``IMS Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Stan Macel, Assistant General Counsel,
FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 14, 2010 (``FINRA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Description of Proposal

    FINRA Rule 8210 (Provision of Information and Testimony and
Inspection and Copying of Books) confers on FINRA staff the authority
to compel a member, person associated with a member, or other person
over whom FINRA has jurisdiction, to produce documents, provide
testimony, or supply written responses or electronic data in connection
with an investigation, complaint, examination or adjudicatory
proceeding. The rule applies to all members, associated persons, and
other persons over whom FINRA has jurisdiction, including former
associated persons subject to FINRA's jurisdiction as described in the
FINRA By-Laws.\6\ FINRA Rule 8210(c) provides that a member's or
person's failure to provide information or testimony or to permit an
inspection

and copying of books, records, or accounts is a violation of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA By-Laws, Article V, Section 4(a) (Retention of
Jurisdiction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 8210 to require that
information provided via a portable media device pursuant to a request
under the rule be encrypted, as discussed further below. Requiring such
information to be encrypted will help ensure that such information,
which in many instances includes individuals' personal information, is
protected from unauthorized or improper use.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA has emphasized that its members have an obligation
under existing laws to protect confidential customer records and
information pursuant to the requirements of SEC Regulation S-P. See,
e.g., Notice to Members 05-49 (Safeguarding Confidential Customer
Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FINRA, frequently, members and persons who respond to
requests pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210 provide information in electronic
format. Because of the size of the electronic files, persons often
provide information in electronic format using a portable media device
such as a CD-ROM, DVD or portable hard drive.\8\ In many instances, the
response contains personal information that, if accessed by an
unauthorized person, could be used inappropriately. For example, a
response may include a person's first and last name, or first initial
and last name, in combination with that person's: (1) Social security
number; (2) driver's license, passport or government-issued
identification number; or (3) financial account number (including but
not limited to the number of a brokerage account, debit card, credit
card, checking account, or savings account). If such personal
information were to be intercepted by an unauthorized third party, it
could be used improperly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed rule change defines ``portable media device''
as a storage device for electronic information, including but not
limited to a flash drive, CD-ROM, DVD, portable hard drive, laptop
computer, disc, diskette, or any other portable device for storing
and transporting electronic information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, according to FINRA, data security issues regarding
personal information have become increasingly important in recent
years.\9\ In this regard, FINRA believes that requiring persons to
encrypt information on portable media devices provided to FINRA in
response to FINRA Rule 8210 requests will help ensure that personal
information is protected from improper use by unauthorized third
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In its Notice, FINRA represents, for example, that some
jurisdictions, including Massachusetts and Nevada, have recently
enacted legislation that establishes minimum standards to safeguard
personal information in electronic records. See, e.g., Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, 201 CMR 17.00 (Standards for the Protection of
Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth), effective
March 1, 2010; State of Nevada, NRS 603A.215 (Security Measures for
Data Collector that Accepts Payment Card; Use of Encryption;
Liability for Damages; Applicability), effective January 1, 2010. As
stated in the Notice, these laws contain penalties that can be
imposed on persons and entities for failures to adequately safeguard
electronic records containing personal information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would require that information provided
via a portable media device be ``encrypted,'' i.e., the data must be
encoded into a form in which meaning cannot be assigned without the use
of a confidential process or key. To help ensure that encrypted
information is secure, persons providing encrypted information to FINRA
via a portable media device would be required: (1) To use an encryption
method that meets industry standards for strong encryption; and (2) to
provide FINRA staff with the confidential process or key regarding the
encryption in a communication separate from the encrypted information
itself (e.g., a separate e-mail, fax or letter).

III. Discussion of Comment Letters and Commission Findings

    The Commission received eleven comment letters on the proposed rule
change and FINRA responded to these comments.\10\ One commenter
supported the proposal, but recommended that FINRA's rules be amended
to add information security rules for itself and notify registrants
when their non-public information has been accessed.\11\ Two commenters
questioned the need for the encryption requirement and suggested that
FINRA, and not its members, should undertake the responsibility of
establishing data protection \12\ and controls.\13\ Another commenter
believed that the proposed rule change did not address FINRA's
responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the information it
obtains and proposed that members be allowed to redact sensitive
information.\14\ FINRA responded that these comments do not address the
purpose of the proposal which is to safeguard information being
delivered to FINRA via portable media device and noted that it has a
``robust and current information security policy.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra notes 4 and 5.
    \11\ See ICI Letter.
    \12\ See NAIBD Letter (endorsed by Triad I Letter and Triad II
Letter), and PSD Letter.
    \13\ See NAIBD Letter.
    \14\ See Wedbush Letter.
    \15\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five commenters indicated that the application of the proposed rule
to electronic media and not paper documents is too narrow or
misplaced.\16\ One commenter noted that the proposed rule change did
not cover ``hard data transfers'' and was ``inconsistent,'' therefore
``adding an unnecessary layer of cost and inconvenience to the normal
process of business.'' \17\ Another commenter believed that the
proposed rule was ``form over function'' and suggested that overnight
delivery of the electronic files could accomplish the goals of the
proposal.\18\ One commenter noted that FINRA wishes to remove the
discretion of members to encrypt data and yet the proposal does not
cover hard-copy, email and voluntary transmissions of information.\19\
This commenter stated that the proposed rule change ``was a poor
solution'' and suggested that FINRA allow members discretion to
determine encryption methods and apply them to all transmissions to
FINRA.\20\ FINRA responded to these comments by stating that it
believes that encryption is a useful method to protect electronic data
and notes that it is not technically possible to encrypt information in
paper form.\21\ FINRA suggested that it might accept only electronic
submissions of information in the future, but currently must accept the
limitations of paper delivery.\22\ FINRA also stated that it will
explore encryption of other communication methods such as email.\23\
FINRA states that ``the argument that the difficulty of the perfect
encryption of all information irrespective of media is a reason not to
protect that information which can be encrypted could be used to negate
all iterative protections to investors and should not be credited as a
matter of public policy.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Abel/Noser Letter, IMS Letter, NAIBD Letter, PSD
Letter, and Regal Letter, and Abel/Noser Letter.
    \17\ See Regal Letter.
    \18\ See Abel/Noser Letter.
    \19\ See IMS Letter.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See FINRA Letter.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters indicated that requiring encryption of all
information sent via portable media devices is overbroad and suggested
lesser content encryption.\25\ FINRA responded that it ``believes it is
simpler, more efficient and safer to require encryption of all
information provided via portable media device pursuant to a request
under the rule.'' \26\ FINRA stated that the requirement ``obviates the
need for FINRA to circumscribe and monitor,

and for members to determine, the types of information that should or
should not be encrypted under the rule.'' \27\ FINRA believes that the
suggested alternatives would be more costly than the proposal and
believes the proposal ``further supports compliance with the laws in
some jurisdictions.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Great Nation Letter, IMS Letter, and PSD Letter.
    \26\ See FINRA Letter.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven commenters believed that the proposal was difficult or costly
to implement.\29\ For example, some commenters believe that small firms
lack the technical experience to implement the proposal and may have to
hire third parties.\30\ One commenter suggested an exception when
information is provided directly to FINRA staff or on the FINRA
premises.\31\ FINRA questioned the burden on members ``given the
availability of web-based encryption solutions currently available at
low- or no-cost.'' \32\ FINRA noted that ``members may be subject to
various data protection laws that are in part the impetus'' of the
proposal.\33\ FINRA stated that it would ``help educate its members
about the process of encryption'' and would ``endeavor to provide
information regarding various options for encrypting data, including
low- or no-cost web-based encryption software.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Abel/Noser Letter, Great Nation Letter, NAIBD Letter,
PSE Letter, Triad Letter I, Triad Letter II, and Wulff Hansen
Letter.
    \30\ See, e.g., Great Nation Letter, NAIBD Letter, and PSE
Letter.
    \31\ See Wulff Hansen Letter.
    \32\ See FINRA Letter.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters suggested that the proposed requirement to use an
encryption method that ``meets industry standards for strong
encryption'' is too vague and suggested alternatives such as providing
members with the specific method of encryption.\35\ FINRA acknowledged
that, as proposed, the rule does not mandate a specific method of
encryption.\36\ However, FINRA believes that this standard, which it
stated is ``identical to that employed by Massachusettes and Nevada,''
is necessary to ``adapt to changing technology regarding encryption.''
\37\ FINRA stated that it does not believe that it is ``appropriate at
this time to dictate a `one size fits all' approach'' to
encryption.\38\ As designed, this requirement will allow each member to
choose an appropriate method of encryption that works for it.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See NAIBD Letter, PSE Letter, and Great Nation Letter.
    \36\ See FINRA Letter.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.\40\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\41\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is reasonably
designed to ensure that information provided to FINRA on a portable
media device in response to Rule 8210 is secure. FINRA has represented
that this requirement is necessary to address laws in some
jurisdictions that establish safeguards for personal information and
records. The Commission also notes FINRA's representation that there
are low- or no-cost ways to encrypt files and that it will help educate
its members about the process of encryption and meeting their
obligations under the rule. Although the Commission recognizes that the
proposed rule change does not mandate a specific encryption method, the
Commission believes that some flexibility is appropriate to allow for
changes in technology and for members to choose encryption methods that
meet their needs. Finally, the Commission believes that the fact that
information produced to it in other forms, such as paper-based forms,
for which there is no comparable means of protecting the information
from unwanted disclosure, should not preclude the protection of
information that can be protected.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19b(2) of the Act,\42\
that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2010-021) be, and hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25067 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 2 April 5, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: EPA Air Docket OAR 2003 0012 FROM: William Charmley Engineer Office of Transportation and Air Quality U. S. EPA SUBJECT: Summary of Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association, March 23, 2004, and Conference Call on April 2, 2004 On March 23, 2004, representatives from EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA), met at the Westin Hotel inside the Detroit Metropolitan Airport to discuss the nonroad diesel Tier 4 proposal. A conference call regarding the same topics was also held between EPA and EMA on April 2, 2004. A list of the attendees for these two meeting is attached.

The following topics were discussed during the meetings;

S defect reporting provisions S engine labeling provisions S use of good engineering judgement in the regulations S provisions to account for engines sold in the State of California under the averaging, banking and trading program S Fuel specifications for NR Tier 4 program, and opportunities for harmonization with the European Commissions nonroad diesel fuel specifications S reporting of CO2 emissions as part of the certification process S steady state certification test procedures attachments: Attendees List Page 2 of 2 Attachment: Attendees List EPA Meeting with Engine Manufacturers Association, March 23, 2004 EMA Member Attendees: Kevin Korkada, EMA Jed Mandel, EMA Rick Bishop, John Deere John Duerr, Detroit Diesel Corp. Bill Passie, Caterpillar Todd Hendrickson, Cummins Inc. Bob Jorgenson, Cummins Inc.

EPA Attendees Cle Jackson, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Don Kopinski, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Alan Stout, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Chuck Moulis, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality John Guy, Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality EPA Conference Call with Engine Manufacturers Association, April 2, 2004 EMA Member Attendees: Jed Mandel, EMA EPA Attendees Don Kopinski, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Alan Stout, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Chuck Moulis, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality


Lead Paint Can Poison: Protect Your Family When You Repaint or Remodel.

HUD WANTS YOU TO LEARN THE FACTS ABOUT WORKING SAFELY WITH LEAD PAINT.

Q. Where is lead paint found? A. Most homes built before 1978 have some lead paint. Homes built before 1960 have the most lead paint. Lead paint can be present on any painted surface, but it is most often found on windows, trim, doors, railings, columns, porches and outside walls. Surfaces that have been repainted may have layers of lead paint underneath. A lead inspection can tell you where lead paint is located.

Q. How does painting or remodeling create lead hazards? A. Sanding, scraping or otherwise disturbing lead paint can release large amounts of toxic lead dust. This dust, which may not be visible, can settle on floors and other surfaces where it gets on children's hands and into their mouths.

Q. What do I need to know about hiring a contractor? A. Choose a contractor who knows how to work safely with lead paint. Ask these questions:

° Has the contractor worked safely with lead paint before? Ask for references from at least three recent jobs involving homes built before 1978 and speak to each personally. Find out if the contractor was careful to avoid spreading lead dust and cleaned up thoroughly.

° Has the contractor completed a training program in lead safety? Some community colleges and trade associations sponsor this training for contractors. If contractors advertise that they are certified lead abatement contractors, you can check their credentials by calling 1 888 LEADLIST or visit the Web site, www. leadlisting. org.

° Will the contractor test for lead dust at the end of the job? A lead dust test will show if hazards have been left behind.

DOING IT YOURSELF? USE HUD'S SIMPLE CHECKLIST ON THE REVERSE SIDE TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY FROM LEAD PAINT HAZARDS. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ° Painting or remodeling a home built before 1978 can disturb lead paint and endanger young children.

° Choose a contractor who has experience working with lead paint.

° Federal law requires contractors to give you a brochure, Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, before starting jobs that involve lead paint. WORK SAFELY WITH LEAD PAINT WHEN YOU REPAIR, REPAINT OR RENOVATE.

1. Watch out for lead dust.

q Wet down the paint before sanding or scraping to control lead dust.

q Seal off the work area by covering floors, doors, furniture, windows and vents with heavy plastic. If possible, remove furniture from the room. Keep children and pregnant women away from the work area.

q Before leaving the work area, workers should clean or remove their shoes to avoid tracking lead dust around your home.

2. Use the right tools.

q Avoid creating dust or paint chips. A power sander or grinder should have a hood to trap dust and a HEPA vacuum attachment. Do not use power washing or abrasive blasting on painted surfaces.

q When removing old paint, do not use open flame torches or heat guns over 1100 ° F   high heat creates poisonous fumes. Never use paint strippers that contain methylene chloride.

3. Clean up carefully.

q   Roll up or fold plastic sheets to keep dust and chips from escaping.

q Use a vacuum with a HEPA filter to clean all floors and other surfaces where dust can settle.

q Wash floors, walls and other surfaces with soap and water and rinse with fresh water.

q Dispose of debris, towels and wash cloths in heavy plastic bags. Never burn leaded debris.

q Conduct a lead dust test at the end of the job. Contact an environmental lab for a sampling kit or hire an independent lead professional. Lead dust levels should be no more than 40 micrograms per square foot on floors. If levels are higher, clean the area again, then retest.

HUD WANTS EVERY CHILD TO HAVE A LEAD SAFE HOME!

For more information on working safely with lead paint, see the booklet, Lead Paint Safety: A Field Guide for Painting, Home Maintenance, and Renovation Work. For a free copy, call 1 800 424 LEAD.

For a free brochure on other home safety issues, call HUD's Healthy Homes hotline at 1 800 HUDS FHA or visit HUD's Web site at www. hud. gov. HUD is on your side.

Sponsored by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development www. hud. gov