[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11213-11214]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61645; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ Market Center

March 4, 2010.
    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 26, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify pricing for NASDAQ members using the
NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ will implement the proposed change on
March 1, 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is making minor modifications to its pricing schedule for
execution and routing of orders through the NASDAQ Market Center.
First, NASDAQ is increasing the fee for members using the STGY, SCAN,
SKNY, SKIP, or DOTI routing strategies.\3\ For orders using these
strategies that execute in destinations other than the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') (or NASDAQ OMX BX, in the case of DOTI orders),
NASDAQ will increase the fee from $0.0029 to $0.0030 per share
executed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Orders designated to use these routing strategies check the
NASDAQ book for the full size of the order prior to routing. The
terms and conditions of NASDAQ's routing strategies are described in
NASDAQ Rule 4758.
    \4\ For DOTI orders that execute in NASDAQ OMX BX, NASDAQ will
continue to pass through fees and rebates associated with order
execution on that venue. SCAN, SKNY, STGY, and SKIP orders executed
at NASDAQ OMX BX are currently charged $0.0029, however, and will
now be charged $0.0030. DOTI, STGY, SCAN, SKNY, and SKIP orders that
execute at NYSE are charged $0.0018 per share executed if they
access liquidity at NYSE, or receive a $0.0010 per share executed
credit if they add liquidity at NYSE. These fees and credits are
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, NASDAQ is eliminating a temporary pricing incentive
designed to encourage use of Mid-Point Pegged Orders in the NASDAQ
Market Center. Currently, members providing an average daily volume of
more than 95 million shares of liquidity during a month pay no fee for
the use of Mid-Point Pegged Orders. As a result of the change, all
members will pay the same rates for executions of Mid-Point Pegged
Orders as they pay for executions of other orders in the NASDAQ Market
Center: either $0.0028 or $0.0030 per share executed, depending on the
type of security traded and the member's trading volumes.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the

Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers
and other persons using any facility or system which NASDAQ operates or
controls. The impact of the modest price increases upon the net fees
paid by a particular market participant will depend upon a number of
variables, including the routing strategies that it uses, the relative
availability of liquidity on NASDAQ and other venues, the prices of the
market participant's quotes and orders relative to the national best
bid and offer (i.e., its propensity to add or remove liquidity), the
types of securities that it trades, and its usage of Mid-Point Pegged
Orders. NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
Accordingly, if particular market participants object to the proposed
fee increases, they can avoid paying the fees by directing orders to
other venues or using routing strategies and order types that are not
subject to the increases. NASDAQ believes that its fees continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to members on the basis of whether
they opt to direct orders to NASDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ 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, as amended. Because the market
for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may
readily direct orders to NASDAQ's competitors if they object to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-029. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\9\ 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 Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-029 and should
be submitted on or before March 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5070 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 15880-15881]
[DOCID:fr03ap07-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0979; FRL-8294-6]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products
(SP2) Research Program Subcommittee Meeting--April 2007

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of one meeting of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) SP2 Subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting (a teleconference call) will be held on Wednesday,
April 25, 2007, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. All times noted are eastern time.
The meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests
for the draft agenda or for making oral presentations at the meetings
will be accepted up to 1 business day before each meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the conference call will be by
teleconference only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the
public may obtain the call-in number and access code for the call from
Heather Drumm, whose contact information is listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0979, by one of
the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0979.

     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0979.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Subcommittee Docket,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0979.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-
0979. Note: this is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0979. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific

Counselors, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Subcommittee Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the ORD
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Heather Drumm, Mail Drop 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail
at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Heather
Drumm, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting includes but is not limited
to discussion of progress on the final report. The meeting is open to
the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Heather Drumm at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability, please

contact Heather Drumm, preferably at least 10 days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Jeffery Morris,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
 [FR Doc. E7-6147 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4443-4447]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0106]

Petition for Declaratory Order by Fullington Trailways, LLC

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

ACTION: Declaratory order.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with an order from the Pennsylvania Public
Utilities Commission (PPUC), Fullington Trailways, LLC (Fullington)
filed a petition for a declaratory order (Petition) seeking a
determination from FMCSA on the following three issues with respect to
its State College/Harrisburg and Lewistown/Harrisburg passenger bus
routes: (1) Whether Fullington's operations are within the scope of its
Federal operating authority; (2) whether PPUC regulation as to rates
and schedules is preempted; and (3) whether its operations qualify as a
``special operation'' under 49 U.S.C. 13902 or ``intrastate commuter
bus operation'' under 49 U.S.C. 14501. The Agency grants Fullington's
petition, finding that the passenger bus service in question is within
the scope of Fullington's Federal operating authority, that PPUC
regulation as to rates and schedules is preempted and that Fullington's
operations do not qualify as a ``special operation'' or an ``intrastate
commuter bus operation.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve D. Sapir, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Fullington currently provides passenger bus service along various
routes in Pennsylvania. Along two such routes, Lewistown to Harrisburg
and State College to Harrisburg, Fullington held intrastate authority
from the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PPUC). Fullington
obtained Federal authority to provide service along the Lewistown--
Harrisburg route in 1983 and subsequently obtained Federal authority
for the State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route in December 2006. In
January 2007, Fullington announced plans to discontinue early morning
service on the State College/Harrisburg route and raise rates for early
morning service on the Lewistown--Harrisburg route. Two regular
passengers on Fullington's routes filed complaints with the PPUC
opposing these changes. The PPUC entered an emergency order on January
31, 2007, requiring Fullington to continue to provide service on the
early morning State College--Harrisburg run. In order to comply with
this order, and in response to low passenger demand for this service,
Fullington consolidated its routes to a single State College--
Lewiston--Harrisburg route with multiple morning and afternoon runs.
    An initial order of an administrative law judge, subsequently
adopted by the PPUC on June 24, 2008, concluded that, to the extent the
State College--Harrisburg and Lewistown--Harrisburg routes were
properly characterized as operations in interstate commerce under
federal law, it did not have jurisdiction over the complaint. However,
the PPUC further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to determine
whether the operations were properly characterized as in interstate
commerce and that FMCSA had primary jurisdiction to make the
determination whether Fullington's operations were within the scope of
the carrier's Federal operating authority. The PPUC instructed
Fullington to seek a determination from FMCSA on the following three
issues with respect to its State College--Harrisburg and Lewistown--
Harrisburg routes: (1) Whether Fullington's operations are within the
scope of its Federal operating authority; (2) whether PPUC regulation
over rates and schedules is preempted; and (3) whether the operations
in question qualify as a ``special operation'' or ``intrastate commuter
bus operation'' under 49 U.S.C. 13902.
    On September 17, 2008, Fullington submitted the Petition for
Declaratory Order to FMCSA seeking a determination on these issues.
Before making its determination on the matters raised in the Petition,
the Agency invited the public to submit initial and reply comments. [74
FR 26917] We address those comments below.

Analysis and Conclusions

    Agencies have the discretion to issue declaratory orders to
terminate controversies or resolve uncertainties. 5 U.S.C. 554(e).
Prior to its termination, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
regularly exercised this discretionary authority to resolve disputes.
However, in transferring several ICC functions to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) (first to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and then to FMCSA), Congress envisioned that DOT would generally
not become involved in resolving disputes between private parties. To
effectuate this congressional intent, FHWA stated that although it
reserved the right to issue declaratory orders to resolve controversies
between third parties in appropriate circumstances, it would do so only
in cases having industry-wide significance that raise issues not
adequately addressed by existing legal precedent. Petition for
Declaratory Order Regarding Application of Federal Motor Carrier Truth
In-Leasing Regulations, 63 FR 31827 (Jun. 10, 1998).
    In general, FMCSA does not consider the question of whether a
carrier is operating in interstate commerce to be the type of
controversy rising to the level of industry-wide significance or for
which there is not existing legal precedent. However, in its petition,
Fullington raises an issue--whether the service in question constitutes
a commuter service or special operations--for which there is little
recent legal precedent and of which resolution may have industry-wide
significance.

Jurisdiction

    The PPUC, in its order directing Fullington to petition FMCSA for a
declaratory order, correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to
determine whether Fullington's operations were within the scope of its
interstate operating authority. Goertz v. Fullington

Trailways, LLC, Opinion and Order, PPUC Case No. P-00072246 (Jun. 24,
2008), p. 10. By order dated December 12, 2006, FMCSA granted
Fullington authority to engage in transportation as an interstate
common carrier of passengers over certain regular routes. FMCSA has
primary jurisdiction to interpret the scope of operations that may
lawfully be conducted under this authority. See Funbus Systems, Inc. v.
C.P.U.C., 801 F.2d 1120, 1129 (9th Cir.1986) (interpreting authority of
FMCSA's predecessor). Conversely, State regulatory authorities may not
assume power to interpret the boundaries of federally-issued
certificates or to impose sanctions based upon operations that are
alleged to be authorized by a Federal certificate. See Service Storage
& Transfer Co. v. Virginia, 359 U.S. 171, 177-79 (1959) (interpreting
authority of FMCSA's predecessor).

Fullington's Interstate Operations

    No party disputes that Fullington holds the necessary
authorizations under 49 U.S.C. 3902(a) to provide interstate service
along the State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route. The first
inquiry, therefore, is whether the intrastate service described in the
PPUC proceeding is sufficiently related to interstate transportation
provided over this route to come within the scope of Fullington's
Federal operating authority for the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(3).
That provision permits carriers to provide intrastate passenger service
over interstate routes as follows:

    Intrastate transportation by interstate carriers.--A motor
carrier of passengers that is registered by the Secretary under
subsection (a) is authorized to provide regular-route transportation
entirely in one State as a motor carrier of passengers if such
intrastate transportation is to be provided on a route over which
the carrier provides interstate transportation of passengers.

    To determine whether Fullington's intrastate services meet the
requirements of Sec.  13902(b)(3), the appropriate standard to apply is
that set forth in Funbus Systems, Inc.-Intrastate Operations-Petition
For Declaratory Order, No. MC-C-10917, 1988 WL 225255 (ICC Aug. 11,
1988) (Funbus). See East West Resort Transportation, Inc. v. Binz, 494
F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1200 (D. Colo. 2007) (East West); Airporter of Colo.,
Inc. v. ICC, 866 F.2d 1238, 1240-41 (10th Cir. 1989); see also ICC
Termination Act (ICCTA), Pub. L. 104-88, Sec.  204 (1995) (all ICC
orders and determinations remain in effect until modified or revoked).
In Funbus, the ICC concluded that ``it is not enough for the carrier
merely to offer interstate transportation on the route over which it
conducts intrastate service'' and established a five-part test to
determine whether the intrastate service in question is sufficiently
related to interstate transportation. That test requires us to consider
the following factors: (1) The interstate service must be active; (2)
the intrastate service may not operate independently of the interstate
service, but instead must be conducted as a part of existing interstate
services; (3) the required interstate transportation must be an actual,
regularly scheduled service; (4) the interstate transportation must be
bona fide and involve service in more than one State; and (5) the
interstate transportation must be substantial. Funbus at *2.
    Applying the Funbus test to Fullington's passenger bus operations
on the State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route, we conclude that
Fullington's intrastate traffic falls within the scope of its
federally-authorized interstate operations for the purposes of 49
U.S.C. 13902(b)(3). First, it is undisputed that Fullington's
interstate service is active on the State College--Lewistown--
Harrisburg route. Based on the PPUC's findings as well as comments
submitted by both the complainants and other commuters, all agree that
Fullington offers bus service on this route to through-ticketed
passengers with interstate origins or destinations. Fullington meets
the first prong of the Funbus test.
    Second, Fullington's interstate service does not operate
independently of its intrastate service. Based on evidence Fullington
presented in the PPUC proceeding, as well as comments commuters made in
this docket, it is undisputed that after Fullington obtained Federal
authority in late 2006, any passenger, whether traveling intrastate or
to an interstate destination or origin, could purchase tickets and
board any bus traveling on the State College--Lewiston--Harrisburg
route. Although the evidence presented indicates that certain runs on
this route are more heavily used by commuters, nothing presented in
either forum suggests that Fullington operates these runs as a separate
operation. To the contrary, all evidence and comments point to the
opposite conclusion: that all runs on the route are part of the same
integrated operations regardless of whether made during peak or off-
peak commuting times.
    Third, Fullington's interstate transportation is part of an actual,
regularly-scheduled service. Based on evidence presented to the PPUC
and comments submitted to this docket, it is undisputed that Fullington
offers five regularly-scheduled runs on the State College--Lewistown--
Harrisburg route each day. Fullington's transportation on these runs is
part of an integrated operation that serves both interstate and
intrastate passengers.
    To satisfy the fourth step, that the interstate transportation must
be bona fide and involve service in more than one State, we look at
whether the intrastate operations have a nexus to interstate
operations. See East West at 1201-1204. In this case, that nexus
clearly exists.
    Through-ticketing for interstate destinations is one indicia of
interstate service. Funbus at 2, note 1. Fullington offers through-
ticketing services that allow passengers to buy tickets on the State
College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route connecting in Harrisburg with
other carriers, such as Greyhound or Amtrak for passenger
transportation out of State. Goertz v. Fullington Trailways, LLC,
Opinion and Order, PPUC Case No. P-00072246, Initial Decision (Mar. 10,
2008) (``PPUC Initial Decision''), ]] 19-21. No party or commenter
disputes that Fullington offers this service or that through-ticketed
passengers use Fullington's services on the State College--Lewistown--
Harrisburg route for interstate travel.
    The nexus between intrastate and interstate transportation also
exists where the intrastate transportation is an integral part of an
interstate journey. See Brown's Crew Car of Wyo. LLC v. Nevada Transp.
Auth., 2009 WL 1240458, at 12 (D. Nev. May 1, 2009). Fullington
introduced evidence at the PPUC demonstrating that the State College--
Lewistown--Harrisburg route was an integral part of an interstate
journey for a significant number of passengers on that route. A traffic
study conducted between July and December 2006 showed that
approximately 40% of Fullington's passengers on the routes in question
were actually engaged in interstate travel. PPUC Initial Decision, ]
22.
    As a result, based on evidence of through-ticketing presented to
the PPUC and actual movements reflected in the traffic study, we
conclude that there is a sufficient nexus between the intrastate and
interstate transportation to satisfy the fourth prong of the Funbus
test.
    Finally, Fullington argues that due to changes in the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, Public Law 100-
17, Sec.  340 (1987), the fifth Funbus factor, which requires that the
interstate transportation be substantial, is no longer relevant.
Petition at 6, note 3. This is consistent with the ICC's position in
Funbus. See

Funbus at *4. However, as Fullington noted, a number of courts have
continued to apply the substantiality requirement regardless of the
statutory change. Petition at 6, note 3; see e.g., East West, 494
F.Supp. 2d at 1200. Because we conclude that Fullington's interstate
transportation is substantial, we do not address this apparent conflict
in precedent.
    Courts have interpreted the substantiality requirement to mean that
the interstate traffic is substantial in relation to the intrastate
traffic in the same operation. East West at 1200, citing Airporter of
Colo., Inc., 866 F.2d at 1240-41 (10th Cir. 1989).
    Fullington's Federal authority is not limited to particular runs,
but rather applies to the entire State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg
route. See 49 U.S.C. (b)(3). In evaluating whether it is substantial,
we look at the proportion of interstate traffic on those routes for
which Fullington holds Federal operating authority and do not limit our
analysis to individual runs. There is little question that Fullington's
interstate traffic is substantial in relation to its intrastate traffic
on the routes in question. The traffic study conducted in 2006 shows
that approximately 40% of passengers on the State College to Harrisburg
route were traveling interstate. Although there is no bright line test
to determine what proportion of interstate travel constitutes
``substantial,'' 40% falls within the generally accepted range. See
East West, 494 F.Supp. 2d. at 1205 (observing that the ICC had found
that substantial means at least 24-28% of the traffic be interstate).
    In sum, we conclude that Fullington's operations on the State
College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route meet the Funbus criteria and fall
squarely within the scope of its Federal operating authority.

Special Operations

    In accordance with the PPUC's order, Fullington requested that we
specifically address whether the State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg
route constitutes a ``special operation'' for the purposes of 49 U.S.C.
13902(b)(6). In its petition, Fullington also raised a number of issues
related to the application of Sec.  13902(b)(2) to the preemption
analysis. See Petition at 10. Because we conclude that Fullington's
State College--Lewiston--Harrisburg operations do not constitute
special operations, we need not address these issues.
    Section Sec.  13902(b)(6) provides:

    Special operations.--This subsection shall not apply to any
regular-route transportation of passengers provided entirely in one
State which is in the nature of a special operation.

Neither FMCSA nor the Federal courts have had the opportunity to
interpret ``special operations'' for the purposes of 49 U.S.C.
13902(b)(6). As a result, we look to the interpretations of our
predecessor agency, the ICC. See ICCTA, Sec.  204.
    The term ``special operations'' has historically been interpreted
to be a catch-all classification for those operations that are neither
regular-route transportation of passengers nor charter operations.
Asbury Park-New York Transit Corporation v. Bingler Vacation Tours,
Inc., 62 M.C.C. 731, 739 (1954) (Asbury Park). The most common types of
special operations are sightseeing or pleasure tours. Id.; Fordam Bus
Corp. Common Carrier Application, 29 M.C.C. 293, 297 (1941) (Fordham).
Characteristics may include an all-expense-included sightseeing or
pleasure tour; additional services such as a guide or meals; or
weekend, holiday or special occasion-only service organized by the
carrier. Michaud Bus Lines, Inc., Extension Tours, 100 M.C.C. 432, 443
(1966); Asbury Park, 62 M.C.C. at 739; Fordam, 29 M.C.C. at 297.
Special operations may also include a variety of different services
such as door-to-door service, day trips to race tracks, casinos,
sporting events, or other excursions. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v.
ICC, 765 F.3d 329, 342 (2d Cir. 1985). Whether a particular service
constitutes special operations depends on the individual
characteristics of the service (id.) and FMCSA's predecessor agency
expressly declined to issue regulations defining them with specificity.
See Passenger Transportation in Special Operations, 112 M.C.C. 160, 174
(1970).
    Nothing in the record suggests that Fullington's State College--
Lewistown--Harrisburg operations are anything other than regular-route
transportation of passengers. Fullington's service does not have any of
the above-mentioned characteristics that would distinguish it from
traditional regular-route passenger service and necessitate application
of the ``catch-all'' classification of special operations. Accordingly,
we find that Fullington's State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route is
not a special operation for the purposes of 49 U.S.C. 13902(b)(6).

Commuter Service

    In accordance with the PPUC's order, Fullington has also requested
that we determine whether the State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg
route constitutes a ``commuter bus operation'' for the purposes of 49
U.S.C. 14501(a)(1). We conclude that Fullington's State College--
Lewistown--Harrisburg route is not a commuter service.
    Section 14501(a)(1) provides:

    (a) Motor carriers of passengers.--
    (1) Limitation on State law.--No State or political subdivision
thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of 2 or
more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation,
standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law
relating to--
    (A) scheduling of interstate or intrastate transportation
(including discontinuance or reduction in the level of service)
provided by a motor carrier of passengers subject to jurisdiction
under subchapter I of chapter 135 of this title on an interstate
route;
    (B) the implementation of any change in the rates for such
transportation or for any charter transportation except to the
extent that notice, not in excess of 30 days, of changes in
schedules may be required; or
    (C) the authority to provide intrastate or interstate charter
bus transportation.
    This paragraph shall not apply to intrastate commuter bus
operations, or to intrastate bus transportation of any nature in the
State of Hawaii.

Title 49, United States Code, subtitle IV, part B (which contains Sec.
14501(a)(1)) does not define ``commuter bus operations.'' In the
absence of a statutory definition, we consider the plain meaning of
``commuter service'' and DOT regulations for guidance. See Greyhound
Lines, Inc. v. The City of New Orleans, 29 F. Supp.2d 399 (E.D. La.
1998) (Greyhound v. New Orleans). In Greyhound v. New Orleans, the
court found that ``an ordinary reading of `commuter' suggests regular
travel to and from work.'' FMCSA's regulations provide the following
definition of commuter service:

    Commuter service--means passenger transportation wholly between
points not more than 100 airline miles apart and not involving
through-bus, connecting, or interline services to or from points
beyond 100 airline miles. The usual characteristics of commuter
service include reduced fare, multiple-ride, and commutation
tickets, and peak morning and evening operations.

49 CFR 374.303(g). DOT's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
regulations define commuter bus service as follows:

    Commuter bus service means fixed route bus service,
characterized by service predominantly in one direction during peak
periods, limited stops, use of multi-ride tickets, and routes of
extended length, usually between the central business district and
outlying suburbs. Commuter bus service may also include other
service, characterized by a limited route structure, limited stops,
and a coordinated relationship to another mode of transportation.

49 CFR 37.3.

    Fullington's State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg operation does
not constitute a commuter service under either of these definitions.
The route provides interline service to through-ticketed passengers.
More importantly, operations on this route are not limited to peak
morning and afternoon hours and the route is used by passengers
traveling at off-peak hours. We must also take into account that the
route accommodates university students, many of whom are engaged in
interstate travel, at off-peak and holiday hours. Whether Fullington
previously operated the State College--Harrisburg and Lewistown--
Harrisburg routes as a commuter service under PPUC authority is not
relevant to our inquiry. Our review is limited to Fullington's
operations since it obtained Federal operating authority. Since then,
the record shows that Fullington has not operated these routes as a
commuter service.

Conclusion

    Section 14501(a)(1) preempts State or local government entities
from regulating the rates or scheduling of carriers that provide
intrastate or interstate transportation subject to Federal
jurisdiction. Because we find that Fullington is operating its State
College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route within its Federal operating
authority, we conclude that the PPUC's jurisdiction over rates and
schedules is preempted.

Response to Comments

    The Agency received eleven initial comments of which five commuters
(including complainants in the PPUC action) opposed Federal
jurisdiction and three bus companies (including Fullington), an
industry association, three county commissioners and four members of
Congress supported Federal jurisdiction. The Agency received eleven
reply comments of which ten commuters (including complainants in the
PPUC action) opposed Federal jurisdiction. One industry association
supported Federal jurisdiction. Many of the comments we received
repeated information or arguments presented at the PPUC or raised
issues well beyond the scope of the Federal Register notice. We address
the relevant comments below, organized by issue.

Whether Fullington's Operations Are Within the Scope of Its Federal
Operating Authority and Whether PPUC Regulation as to Rates and
Schedules Is Preempted

Comments
    The five commuters who opposed Federal jurisdiction over
Fullington's State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route made three
primary arguments: (1) That Fullington's operations on this route do
not meet the substantiality test as set forth in Funbus; (2) that
Fullington's operations on this route do not cross State lines; and (3)
that Fullington's current operations should not be the focus of FMCSA's
analysis.
Response
    As explained above, we acknowledge that there is some conflict
between the ICC's Funbus decision and subsequent court decisions.
Although Funbus does not require that we consider substantiality, we
nonetheless erred on the side of caution to be consistent with more
recent court decisions and included it in our analysis. Traffic studies
show that approximately 40% of the traffic on this route originates or
terminates out of State. Existing precedent supports our conclusion
that this is substantial.
    Although Fullington's State College--Lewiston--Harrisburg route
does not cross State lines, Federal law provides that passengers along
this route may be engaged in interstate transportation if their origin
or destination is out of State. We conclude that Fullington has
provided ample evidence of through-ticketing and actual interstate
movements to conclude that it conducts interstate transportation on
this route.
    Finally, a number of comments were focused on Fullington's
operations when it was operating pursuant to its PPUC authority, prior
to when it began operating under its Federal authority. However, those
comments relate to operations outside the scope of Fullington's Federal
authority. We only consider those services Fullington provided in
accordance with its Federal authority and render no opinion on any
services provided prior to that date.
Comments
    The commenters who supported Federal jurisdiction made four basic
arguments: (1) Fullington meets the Funbus criteria, including the
substantiality requirement; (2) a contrary finding would lead to
excessive regulation and put intercity bus operators at a competitive
disadvantage; (3) the authority to certificate carriers and the
preemption of State laws apply to routes, not to specific line runs;
and (4) Fullington's operations, even if only 24% of traffic on the
route in question is interstate, are substantial for purposes of the
Funbus test.
Response
    As explained above, we agree that Fullington has met the Funbus
criteria, including the substantiality requirement. We also agree that
the appropriate analysis is whether Fullington's entire State College--
Lewistown--Harrisburg route is within the scope of its Federal
operating authority and not whether particular runs individually meet
the Funbus test. As we have already concluded that Fullington's
operations along this route are within the scope of its Federal
operating authority and that State regulation over rates and schedules
is preempted, we do not address the policy implications of reaching the
opposite conclusion. Similarly, because we conclude that approximately
40% of Fullington's traffic along this route is interstate, we do not
need to make a determination as to whether any other percentage would
be considered substantial.

Whether Fullington's Operations Qualify as a ``Special Operation'' or
``Intrastate Commuter Bus Operation'' Under 49 U.S.C. 13902

Special Operation

Comment
    FMCSA received one comment noting that special operations can
include regular route transportation of passengers.
Response
    FMSCA agrees that special operations can include operations over
regular routes; however, such operations are distinguished from regular
route transportation because they entail and are distinguished by
additional service features as noted in the analysis above. The Agency
believes that the other individual characteristics of Fullington's
State College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route are not consistent with the
distinguishing service features that characterize special operations.

Intrastate Commuter Bus Operation

    A number of commenters argued that the characteristics of State
College--Lewistown--Harrisburg route were those of a commuter
operation, following a common sense definition. These characteristics
include: That the early morning and late afternoon runs are used
primarily by commuters; that

the buses do not run on holidays or weekends; that the schedule
reflects passengers' commuting schedule; that the bus stops at multiple
work places in Harrisburg; that the route is 90 miles; and daily
passengers can buy a 20-ride or monthly ticket at reduced prices.
Response
    FMCSA acknowledges that all of these characteristics could be
associated with an intrastate commuter bus operation. Although such
factors, either individually or collectively, could speak to the
frequency or regularity of use of a passenger transportation service,
they are not dispositive of commuter service. In fact, Fullington's
route has other characteristics that support our conclusion that it is
not a commuter bus operation. For example, Fullington offers through-
ticketing and has demonstrated through traffic studies that passengers
actually use the route in interstate transportation. Furthermore,
Fullington operates this route several times a day at times other than
peak commuting times. Many of the commenters who support a finding of
commuter bus operations acknowledge that these non-peak runs exist and
that they serve interstate passengers, including Pennsylvania State
University students.
Comments
    Commenters supporting a finding that Fullington's State College--
Lewiston--Harrisburg route is not a commuter bus operation noted that
even though the route is used by commuters, it terminates at the
Harrisburg Transportation Center, a multi-modal center where passengers
can transfer to other bus and rail operators. They further state that
the fact that commuters use the early morning and afternoon runs does
not make the entire federally-authorized route a commuter bus
operation.
Response
    FMCSA agrees that these characteristics support its conclusion that
Fullington is not operating the route in question as an intrastate
commuter bus operation.

Preemption

Comment
    One commenter argued that Fullington was obligated to have ``closed
out'' its State operating authority prior to obtaining Federal
operating authority.
Response
    We disagree with this comment. The Agency is unaware of any
provision of law requiring a carrier to surrender or ``close out'' its
State operating authority prior to obtaining and using Federal
operating authority.

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-1645 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


reduction as the SO2 lb/MMBtu described above (i.e., the 40-
percent reduction in the emissions rate for SO2 between the
MACT floor value of 1.0 lb/MMBtu and the beyond-the-floor value of 0.60
lb/MMBtu). The results of the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor
analyses are shown below in Table 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Memorandum titled NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired EGUs: MACT
Floor Analysis and Beyond the MACT Floor Analysis for Subcategory of
Existing Eastern Bituminous Coal Refuse-Fired EGUs Under
Consideration, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794.

         Table 8--MACT Floor Results for Potential Eastern Bituminous Coal Refuse-Fired EGUs Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Parameter                    HCl                        SO2
           Subcategory           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number in MACT floor                5                          5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Eastern Bituminous Coal  99% UPL of top 5........  0.060 lb/MMBtu             1.0 lb/MMBtu
 Refuse-Fired EGUs.               (i.e., MACT floor)......  0.60 lb/MWh                15 lb/MWh
                                  Beyond-the-floor          0.040 lb/MMBtu             0.6 lb/MMBtu
                                   Standard.                0.40 lb/MWh                9 lb/MWh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA solicits comment on these analyses and the methodology
presented in the accompanying memorandum (Comment C-19).\55\
Additionally, the EPA solicits comment on the appropriate definition of
an eastern bituminous coal refuse-fired EGU (Comment C-20).
Specifically, the EPA is seeking comment on the amount of eastern
bituminous coal refuse that an EGU must fire to be an eastern
bituminous coal refuse-fired EGU (e.g., must the EGU fire 100 percent
of the fuel or should it be allowed to co-fire some small amount of
another fuel if needed?) (Comment C-21). The EPA also solicits comment
on distinctions in smaller FBC units as compared to larger FBC units
(e.g., those less than 150 MW as compared to those greater than 150 MW
in capacity) that fire eastern bituminous coal refuse (Comment C-22).
The EPA further solicits comment on potential effects of establishing
an acid gas HAP emission standard for a subcategory of small EGUs
burning eastern bituminous coal refuse (Comment C-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

    The EPA estimates that there are 713 existing EGUs located at 323
facilities that are subject to the MATS rule. The basis of our estimate
of affected EGUs and facilities are provided in the Risk Modeling
Dataset Memo, which is available in the docket for this action. Because
the EPA is not proposing any amendments to the MATS rule, there would
not be any cost, environmental, or economic impacts as a result of this
proposed action.

IX. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses (Comment
C-24). We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to
the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk
modeling (Comment C-25). Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section X of
this preamble provides more information on submitting data. As
described in section VII of this preamble, we also solicit comment on
establishing a subcategory and acid gas emission standards for existing
eastern bituminous coal refuse-fired EGUs.

X. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses (including instructions) are available
for download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address,

commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket. The EPA does not project any
potential costs or benefits associated with this action.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. There are no quantified cost estimates for this proposed rule
because this proposed rule is not expected to result in any changes in
costs.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0567. This action does not impose an information
collection burden because the EPA is not proposing any changes to the
information collection requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA does
not project any potential costs or benefits associated with this
action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It would neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections V.A and C, and sections VI.A and B of this preamble, and
further documented in the risk document, available in the docket for
this action.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action is not anticipated to have
impacts on emissions, costs, or energy supply decisions for the
affected electric utility industry.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section VI.A of this
preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coal- and Oil-Fired
EGUs, available in the docket for this action.

    Dated: December 27, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-00936 Filed 2-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 46609-46610]
[DOCID:fr10se09-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 22 and 23, 2009,
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, and
C, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Louise E. Magruder, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On October 22 and 23, 2009, the committee will discuss and
make recommendations on public health issues related to the use of
digital whole slide imaging systems to replace conventional light
microscopy for diagnostic surgical pathology. In the scope of this
meeting, digital pathology is defined as converting what can be
observed by conventional light microscopy on histologic glass slides
into digital whole slide images via digital scanners; viewing these
images via a computer monitor to render pathologic diagnosis of the
lesion of interest; and digitally archiving and retrieving these
images. The committee will not be discussing computer-assisted image
analysis or remote real-time microscopy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available on the FDA Internet under the appropriate date at http://
www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.com. Scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
October 15, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. each day. Those desiring to
make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before October 1, 2009. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will

notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by October
8, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Conference Management Staff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in advance
of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 4, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-21810 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50726]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14170-000]

Riverbank Hydro No. 14, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 2, 2011, Riverbank Hydro No. 14, LLC (Riverbank Hydro),
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Tuttle Creek Hydroelectric Project (Tuttle Creek Project or
project) to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps)
Tuttle Creek Dam, on Big Blue River, near Manhattan, Riley County,
Kansas. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 350-
foot-long, 16-foot-diameter penstock bifurcating from the existing
outlet structure; (2) a 100-foot-long, 50-foot-wide concrete powerhouse
containing one turbine with a generator rating of 7.9 megawatts; (3) a
tailrace structure directing flows from the powerhouse back into the
river channel downstream of the existing dam; (4) a 2.8-mile-long, 25-
kilovolt transmission line connecting the project to an existing
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the Tuttle Creek Project would be 30.5 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kuo-Bao Tong, Riverbank Power Corporation,
Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, P.O. Box 166, 200 Bay Street, Suite
3230, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J2J4; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension
154.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14170-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20754 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


20142 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices were proposed on October 22, 1974 and promulgated on August 6, 1975. These standards apply to each wet process phosphoric acid plant, each superphosphoric acid plant, each granular diammonium phosphate plant, and each triple superphosphate plant, having a design capacity of more than 15 tons of equivalent phosphorous pentoxide ( P2O5) feed per calendar day. These standards also apply to granular triple superphosphate storage facilities. Owners or operators of affected facilities described must make the following one time only initial notifications and reports on the results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. The owners or operators must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device which continuously measures and permanently records the total pressure drop across the scrubbing system. Also required are semiannual reports. The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory and are being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts T, U, V, W, and X. These notifications, reports and records are essential in determining compliance. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 46 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; 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Estimated Number of Respondents: 13. Frequency of Response: Initial and Semiannual. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,194. Estimated Total Annualized Operations and Maintenance Cost: $ 320,000. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 231 hours and $ 320,000 in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of approved ICR burdens. This is due to an increase in the number of sources and a reconsideration of the operation and maintenance costs for the required continuous emission monitors.

Dated: April 10, 2003. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   10171 Filed 4   23   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPPT   2003   0018; FRL   7303   4]

National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management; Notice of Proposal Solicitation AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting proposals from federally recognized Indian tribes or intertribal consortia to co sponsor the 7th National Tribal Conference on Environmental Management ( NTCEM). EPA will be the federal sponsor. The Tribal Conference will provide an opportunity for tribal leaders, tribal environmental managers, tribal organizations, federal agencies, and other interested entities/ persons to share information about tribal environmental programs and discuss issues of vital interest to Indian country. The scope of the conference traditionally encompasses multi media environmental issues involving tribes. The goals for the conference are to facilitate tribal environmental programs; establish stronger networks and relationships across environmental efforts in Indian country; identify shared lessons learned; and familiarize tribes with the full extent of tribal and EPA program environmental activities. EPA will award a cooperative agreement to the selected host tribe to co sponsor the conference, including personnel, planning, facilities, and management expenses.

DATES: Proposals must be received or postmarked byJune 23, 2003. A conference call for potential applicants to ask questions or seekpreapplication assistance is scheduled for May 7, 2003, from 2 p. m. to 4: 30 p. m. eastern standard time. Please call Caren Rothstein Robinson at ( 202) 564   0544 to obtain the conference call telephone number and the access code. ADDRESSES: Mail proposals via the U. S. Postal Service ( including express and priority mail) to: Clara Mickles, Environmental Protection Agency, American Indian Environmental Office, Mail code 4104M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Mail proposals via commercial overnight delivery service ( e. g., FedEx, DHL, UPS) to: Clara Mickles, Environmental Protection Agency, American Indian Environmental Office, Room 3334, EPA East, Mail code 4104M, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caren Rothstein Robinson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Program Management Operations, Mail code 7101M, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564   0544. Applicants may submit written questions for clarification electronically to: rothstein robinson. caren@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of particular interest to federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal consortia. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 45 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APN1. SGM 24APN1 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 APR24 7: 22AM OPPT 2003 0018 0001 20143 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices under docket identification ( ID) number OPPT   2003   0018. The official public docket consists of documents specifically referenced in this action and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B   102 Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is ( 202) 566   1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is ( 202) 566   0280. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under theFederal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may also access this document and copies of past conference agendas from EPA's American Indian Environmental Office's web page at http:// www. epa. gov/ indian/ . Significant questions and responses as well as any significant clarifications to this request for proposals will be posted on EPA's American Indian Environmental Office's web page at http:// www. epa. gov/ indian/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background Starting in 1992, EPA has cosponsored six bi annual NTCEM conferences to provide an opportunity for tribal leaders, tribal environmental program managers, tribal organizations, federal agencies, and other interested entities to share information about tribal environmental programs and discuss issues of vital interest to Indian country. Topics at past conferences have helped to build tribal capacity in the following areas: 1. Managing environmental programs ( including integrated waste programs). 2. Grant assistance to tribes. 3. Addressing concerns about human health risks and subsistence. 4. Contracting, research, and business development opportunities. 5. Technology ( GIS) and natural resource management. 6. Air, water, and waste management issues. The conference has traditionally been held in late spring. Following is a list of previous conference locations and dates: 1. Cherokee Nation, NC ( May 1992) 2. Cherokee Nation, NC ( May 1994) 3. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, MT ( May 1996) 4. Prairie Island Indian Community, MN ( May 1998) 5. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, OR ( June 2000) 6. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, NV ( June 2002) The most recent conference, hosted by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, in Reno, NV, was very successful in content as well as in attendance. Over 700 people attended this conference. Past conferences have drawn500   700 participants representing more than 200 tribes, Native Alaskans, intertribal consortia, federal employees and private/ non profit organizations. The conference agenda included all aspects of tribal environmental issues. EPA has decided to sponsor the 7th NTCEM in the spring of 2005, with EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS), serving as the lead office for the event. In the past, the NTCEM has been held biannually in late spring which would place the 7th NTCEM sometime in late spring of 2004. The decision to hold the conference in the spring of 2005 is being made because EPA and its tribal partners are planning several significant activities in the 2004 calendar year. Moreover, EPA is aware that the National Museum of the American Indian is planned to have its grand opening in the fall of 2004. EPA understands that there are a number of tribal activities and celebrations being held in conjunction with the Museum's opening and does not want to detract from these events. EPA also believes that spacing major tribal events more widely presents several positive benefits. It will help spread scarce tribal travel expenses over a longer period and encourage tribal participation at more events. Scheduling the NTCEM for the spring of 2005 would also give the host tribe additional time to plan for and work with other tribes across the country to ensure fuller participation and a diverse agenda more accurately reflecting Tribal interest and issues.

III. 2005 Host Responsibilities The tribal host will be the primary non federal co sponsor for this conference. Strong conference management capabilities are essential, and include: Developing the conference agenda, handling conference logistics ( such as registration, transportation, and travel scholarships for tribal participants), developing conference materials, and communications planning and outreach to ensure that priority environmental issues of interest to tribes are represented. The host tribe will support the tribal community in their participation by encouraging attendance and covering related travel expenses for the appropriate tribal personnel. The host tribe will also take the lead role in developing a conference theme. EPA will be the federal co sponsor of the NTCEM and will work with the tribal co sponsor to identify national tribal environmental issues and arrange for federal participation. The Agency will enter into a written co sponsorship agreement under EPA Ethics Advisory 96   15 with the selected tribal cosponsor EPA will provide technical assistance to the tribal co sponsor, as needed, to resolve logistics and communication issues associated with the event. In consultation with the tribal co sponsor, EPA may advertise the conference in EPA websites, notices, newsletters and other internal EPA communications materials.

IV. Coordination with Other Federal Agencies and Tribal Organizations EPA and the host tribe will coordinate with other federal agencies and key EPA supported tribal entities ( including the Tribal Operations Committee, Tribal Pesticide Program Council, Tribal Science Council, Tribal Association on Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and many other broader based intertribal organizations and consortia) to strengthen the multi media character of this conference. These groups will be invited to participate on the conference agenda or independently around the other on going conference events. Once the conference host is selected, EPA encourages interested organizations to contact the host to coordinate efforts.

V. Evaluation Criteria EPA is requesting proposals from federally recognized Indian tribes or intertribal consortia to host the National VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 45 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APN1. SGM 24APN1 20144 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices Tribal Conference on Environmental Management through a cooperative agreement with EPA, generally with a project period of 2 years. The applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 66.604. To be eligible to receive a cooperative agreement under the authorities listed in today's Notice, an intertribal consortium must meet the definition of eligibility in the Environmental Program Grants for Tribes Final Rule, at 40 CFR 35.504 ( 66 FR 3782, January 16, 2001) ( FRL   6929   5), and is a non profit organization within the meaning of OMB Circular A   122. The funding amount for the cooperative agreement is subject to the availability of funds in EPA. Prior cooperative agreement awards for cohosting the Tribal Conference have been in the amount of about $ 300,000. EPA will negotiate the final amount of the award with the selected tribal host. Tribes or intertribal consortia that wish to submit proposals must first meet the four threshold factors described below under Unit V. B. Proposals that do not meet the threshold factors will not be considered further by EPA. If your tribe or intertribal consortium meets these threshold factors, EPA will score your proposal based on how well you meet the evaluation criteria. Please make sure you address the threshold factors first and then provide detailed information on all the listed criteria in your proposal. Clearly mark any information you consider confidential. EPA will make confidentiality decisions in accordance with Agency regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Submissions which do not address a particular criterion will receive a zero score for that criterion. EPA strongly encourages direct involvement by staff from your environmental program/ department, facility managers, and members of the local business community/ chamber of commerce. An EPA panel consisting of representatives from across the Agency will evaluate all qualifying submissions according to the listed criteria, and rank them according to final score. EPA will award a grant to the selected tribal host with the highest scoring proposal to cover personnel, planning, and management expenses. EPA reserves the right to reject all proposals and make alternative arrangements for the conference. EPA will follow the dispute resolution process in accordance with 40 CFR part 31, subpart F for disagreements. Please submit a description of your facilities and a summary of your capabilities ( with limited examples, if appropriate) for all of the criteria listed below.

A. Threshold Factors 1. Proposal must be submitted by an eligible federally recognized Indian tribe or intertribal consortium. 2. Have a conference center or other suitable meeting facilities capable of holding at least 4 concurrent sessions and a plenary session that will accommodate 700 people. 3. Have the capability to lodge 700 people. 4. Demonstrate the ability to effectively manage EPA financial assistance ( i. e., an adequate financial management system with effective accounting procedures that maintain fiscal control).

B. Evaluation Criteria 1. Conference management. The proposal should clearly demonstrate the capability to manage all aspects of a major conference with detailed information and examples. The proposal should provide a preliminary conference plan of the host tribe's proposed approach. Conference management includes outreach, preparation, implementation, and wrapup of the conference. Outreach should address issues such as effective involvement of tribes, communications plan, and internet capability. Preparation and implementation should address such issues as staffing; design and development of agenda; travel and facility logistics; registration; tribal travel scholarships; events; and contractual support. Wrap up should address issues such as conference proceedings and evaluation by participants. Inclusion of ( limited) documentation that specifically illustrates tribal conference management capability is strongly encouraged. ( Maximum of 20 points) 2. Tribal environmental capabilities. Tribe or intertribal consortium demonstrates they have developed substantive environmental capabilities through, for example, establishing and implementing tribal environmental programs or coordinating/ leading tribal environmental projects. Tribe or intertribal consortium demonstrates how such experience will be integrated into the conference, to include tribal environmental management and program perspectives, approaches and cultural aspects, such that the conference is distinguished from other environmental conferences. Proposal demonstrates how the tribe or intertribal consortium will closely tie the event to Indian country or tribal homelands. Proposal highlights how the host tribe will reflect tribal environmental issues in the conference theme and agenda. Proposal highlights local events, activities and/ or projects that reflect tribal perspective. Examples from previous conferences include host tribe environmental program presentations and tours, technical and ceremonial demonstrations, tours of communities, and field trips to environmental sites. ( Maximum of 20 points) 3. Conference facilities. Consideration will be given for conference facilities/ amenities that are tribally owned or located on tribal land. Tribes that do not have facilities located on their lands can outline a plan to utilize nearby facilities that meet the logistical needs described in the criteria. ( Maximum of 12 points). 4. Conference transportation. Demonstrate that: ( i) Airline transportation is economically feasible for most conference participants; ( ii) the conference facilities are located within 90 minutes of a major airport; and ( iii) ground transportation can be provided for attendees to and from the airport and around the meeting sites ( e. g., between meeting facility and offsite locations such as hotels and special event locations). Lodging should be available within a reasonable travel time, preferably within 15 minutes of conference facilities. ( Maximum of 12 points) 5. Conference materials. Capability to produce and distribute conference materials, such as a conference logo, registration materials, signs/ banners, an agenda booklet, and handouts. ( Maximum of 12 points) 6. Vendor area. Use of an area in close proximity to the meeting area( s) capable of accommodating 25 or more vendors, providing exhibit booth space of 8' x 8' or 10' x 10' per vendor and access to electrical and telephone service. ( Maximum of 12 points) 7. Resource conservation. Commitment to find flexible, yet more protective ways to conserve natural resources in the conduct of the conference. Proposal describes how the host tribe will communicate the environmentally friendly practices used at the conference to conference participants. Examples of resource conservation include: Using products with recycled content or other environmentally friendly materials, collecting recyclables, energy or wateruse efficiency activities, providing opportunities for reuse, and providing sources of education. ( Maximum of 12 points) Total: 100 points. In addition to soliciting proposals for the 2005 conference, EPA encourages you to submit suggestions or ideas for VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 45 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APN1. SGM 24APN1 20145 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices potential agenda topics that your tribe would like to see addressed at the conference. EPA will forward all suggestions to the selected tribal host. EPA also encourages you to attend the conference regardless of whether you are interested in hosting the event.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Indian tribes.

Dated: April 16, 2003. Stephen L. Johnson, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[ FR Doc. 03   10168 Filed 4   23   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0231; FRL   7293   6]

RIN 2070   AD36 Pesticides; Emergency Exemption Process Revisions Pilot and Request for Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) authorizes EPA to issue emergency exemptions to States and Federal agencies, allowing them to use a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited time if EPA determines that emergency conditions exist. EPA is announcing and seeking comment on a limited pilot program initiated by this Notice. The pilot is limited to exemption applications for which the requested chemical is a pesticide previously identified by EPA as a reduced risk pesticide. Under this limited pilot, EPA will allow applicants for certain exemptions to re certify that the emergency conditions which initially qualified for an exemption continue to exist in the second and third years, and will allow for a new tiered approach to be used for documenting a `` significant economic loss.'' This limited pilot is the result of extensive stakeholder involvement and an effort to streamline the emergency exemption process. EPA is also seeking comment on another potential improvement to the emergency exemption program that would provide exemptions for certain pest resistance management purposes. EPA is considering these improvements to the emergency exemption program in an effort to reduce the burden to both applicants and EPA, allow for quicker decisions by the Agency, and facilitate resistance management, while maintaining health and safety requirements. EPA currently intends to publish a proposed rule in 2003 that will propose several potential improvements to the emergency exemption regulations. EPA will consider any available information from this pilot as it proceeds with rulemaking. DATES: Comments, identified by the Docket ID No. OPP   2002   0231, must be received on or before June 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hogue, Field and External Affairs Division ( 7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703   308   9072; fax number: 703   305   5884; e mail address: hogue. joe@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Federal, State, or Territorial government agency that petitions EPA for section 18 use authorization. Regulated categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Federal Government ( NAICS Code 9241), i. e., Federal agencies that petition EPA for section 18 use authorization.   State or Territorial governments ( NAICS Code 9241), i. e., States, as defined in FIFRA section 2( aa), that petition EPA for section 18 use authorization. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed above could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the summary of the applicability provisions as found in Unit III. B. of this Notice. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Notice and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OPP   2002   0231. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 703   305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register Notice electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 45 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APN1. SGM 24APN1


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)] [Notices] [Page 2739] [FR Doc No: C1-2020-27994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket Number: DOT-OST-2020-0254]

Request for Information for the Inclusive Design Reference Hub

Correction

    In notice document 2020-27994 appearing on pages 83152-83154 in the  issue of Monday, December 21, 2020, make the following correction:     (1) On page 83152, in the first column, in the DATES section,  change ``January 20, 2021'' to read ``January 21, 2021.''

[FR Doc. C1-2020-27994 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D