[Federal Register: September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55870-55871]
[DOCID:fr26se08-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0030]

The 13 Carcinogens Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
the 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0030,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0030). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments see
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa Hill or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed

and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This
program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting
burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly
understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is
accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act)
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers
as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for
developing information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The
OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum
burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and
to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of
efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the 13
Carcinogens Standard protect employees from the adverse health effects
that may result from their exposure to the 13 Carcinogens. The
following is a brief description of the collection of information
requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard: establishing and
implementing a medical surveillance program for employees assigned to
enter regulated areas, informing employees of their medical examination
results and providing them with access to their medical records.
Further, employers must also retain employee medical records for
specified time periods and provide these records to the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under certain
circumstances.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection
of information requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard
(29 CFR 1910.1003). The Agency is requesting to reduce its current
burden hour estimate associated with the Standard from 1,657 hours to
1,604 hours for a total reduction of -53 hours. The reduction is
primarily the result of decreasing both the number of establishments
(from 97 to 93 establishments) and the number of exposed employees
(from 663 to 643). The Agency will include this summary in its request
to OMB to extend the approval of these collection of information
requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003).
    OMB Number: 1218-0085.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 93.
    Total Responses: 2,119.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Time per Response: Time per response ranges from
approximately 5 minutes (for employers to maintain records) to 2 hours
(for records access and transfer).
    Total Burden Hours: 1,604.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $88,816.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to
this notice by (1) Hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3)
electronically through the OSHA Web site. Because of security-related
problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments
by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand
delivery and courier service.
    All comments, submissions and background documents are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web site are
available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through the OSHA Web site and
for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other
relevant documents are available on OSHA's Web site. Since all
submissions become public, personal information such as social security
numbers and date of birth should not be submitted.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of September 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-22664 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11455-11456]
[DOCID:fr07mr06-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 2a-7; SEC File No. 270-258; OMB Control No. 3235-0268.

    Notice is hereby given that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (``PRA'') [44 U.S.C. 3501], the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
requests for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Rule 2a-7 [17 CFR 270.2a-7] under the Investment Company Act of
1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the ``Act'') governs money market funds. Money
market funds are open-end management investment companies that differ
from other open-end management investment companies in that they seek
to maintain a stable price per share, usually $1.00. The rule exempts
money market funds from the valuation requirements of the Act and,
subject to certain risk-limiting conditions, permits money market funds
to use the ``amortized cost method'' of asset valuation or the ``penny-
rounding method'' of share pricing.
    Rule 2a-7 imposes certain recordkeeping and reporting obligations
on money market funds. The board of directors of a money market fund,
in supervising the fund's operations, must establish written procedures
designed to stabilize the fund's net asset value (``NAV''). The board
also must adopt guidelines and procedures relating to certain
responsibilities it delegates to the fund's adviser. These procedures
and guidelines typically address various aspects of the fund's
operations. The fund must maintain and preserve for six years a written
copy of both procedures and guidelines. The fund also must maintain and
preserve for six years a written record of the board's considerations
and actions taken in connection with the discharge of its
responsibilities, to be included in the board's minutes. In addition,
the fund must maintain and preserve for three years written records of
certain credit risk analyses, evaluations with respect to securities
subject to demand features or guarantees, and determinations with
respect to adjustable rate securities and asset backed securities. If
the board takes action with respect to defaulted securities, events of
insolvency, or deviations in share price, the fund must file with the
Commission an exhibit to Form N-SAR describing the nature and
circumstances of the action. If any portfolio security fails to meet
certain eligibility standards under the rule, the fund also must
identify those securities in an exhibit to Form N-SAR. After certain
events of default or insolvency relating to a portfolio security, the
fund must notify the Commission of the event and the actions the fund
intends to take in response to the situation.
    The recordkeeping requirements in rule 2a-7 are designed to enable
Commission staff in its examinations of money market funds to determine
compliance with the rule, as well as to ensure that money market funds
have established procedures for collecting the information necessary to
make adequate credit reviews of securities in their portfolios. The
reporting requirements of rule 2a-7 are intended to assist Commission
staff in overseeing money market funds.
    Commission staff estimates that each of 847 \1\ money market funds
spends a total of approximately 1220 hours \2\ of professional time (at
$76 per hour) \3\ to record credit risk analyses and determinations
regarding adjustable rate securities, asset backed securities and
securities subject to a demand feature or guarantee, for a total of
approximately

$79 million. The staff further estimates that each of 24 new money
market funds spends a total of 21 hours of director, legal, and support
staff time at a total cost of approximately $126,216 to adopt
procedures designed to stabilize the fund's NAV and guidelines
regarding the delegation of certain responsibilities to the fund's
adviser.\4\ The staff further estimates that on average each of 212
money market funds spends a total of 4.5 hours of director and legal
time at a total cost of approximately $916,370 to review and amend
written procedures and guidelines each year.\5\ Finally, the staff
estimates that one money market fund that experiences a change in
certain eligibility standards for portfolio securities or an event of
default or insolvency relating to portfolio securities spends a total
of one and a half hours of professional legal time (at $109.97 per
hour) documenting board determinations and notifying the Commission
regarding the event, for a total of $165. Thus, the Commission
estimates the total annual burden of the rule's information collection
requirements are 1,034,800 hours at an annual cost of $80 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These include registered money market funds and series of
registered funds. This estimate is based on information from Lipper
Inc.'s Lana database as of September 30, 2005.
    \2\ This average is based on discussions with individuals at
money market funds and their advisers. The actual number of burden
hours may vary significantly depending on the type and number of
portfolio securities held by individual funds.
    \3\ The estimated hourly cost of professional time was based on
the weighted average annual salaries reported for senior business
analysts, floor managers and portfolio managers in New York City in
Securities Industry Association, Management and Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry (2003) and Securities Industry
Association, Office Salaries in the Securities Industry (2003)
(collectively, the ``SIA Salary Guides'').
    \4\ This estimate is based on information from iMoneyNet's
database. During the past three years, an average of 24 new money
market funds have been created annually. In calculating industry
costs for complying with the information collection requirements of
rule 2a-7, the Commission staff estimate that fund boards' hourly
rate is $2000 per hour. The estimated costs for professional and
support staff time were based on the average annual salaries
reported in the SIA Salary Guides. The estimated costs for legal
time was based on the weighted average of associate general counsel
salaries reported in the SIA Salary Guides and New York law firm
attorney salaries (outside counsel) based on a survey conducted by
the National Law Journal available at http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/firm_by_firm_
 sampling--of--billing--

rates--nationwide.shtml.
    \5\ For PRA purposes we assumed that on average 25% of money
market funds would review and update their procedures on an annual
basis.
    \6\ A significant portion of the recordkeeping burden involves
organizing information that the funds already collect when initially
purchasing securities. In addition, when a money market fund
analyzes a security, the analysis need not be presented in any
particular format. Money market funds therefore have a choice of
methods for maintaining these records that vary in technical
sophistication and formality (e.g., handwritten notes, computer
disks, etc.). Accordingly, the cost of preparing these documents may
vary significantly among individual funds. The burden hours
associated with filing reports to the Commission as an exhibit to
Form N-SAR are included in the PRA burden estimate for that form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these estimates, Commission staff estimates the total
burden of the rule's paperwork requirements for money market funds to
be 1,034,800 hours.\7\ This is an increase from the previous estimate
of 480,830 hours. The increase is attributable to updated information
from money market funds regarding hourly burdens and the significant
differences in burden hours reported by the funds selected at random to
be surveyed in different submission years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (847 x
1220) + (1 x 1.5) + (24 x 21) + (212 x 4.5) = 1,034,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission
rules.
    In addition to the burden hours, Commission staff estimates that
money market funds will incur costs to preserve records required under
rule 2a-7. These costs will vary significantly for individual funds,
depending on the amount of assets under fund management and whether the
fund preserves its records in a storage facility in hard copy or has
developed and maintains a computer system to create and preserve
compliance records.\8\ Commission staff estimates that the amount an
individual fund may spend ranges from $100 per year to $300,000. Based
on a cost of $0.0000204 per dollar of assets under management for small
fund, $0.0000005 per dollar assets under management for medium funds,
and $0.0000046 per dollar of assets under management for large
funds,\9\ the staff estimates compliance with rule 2a-7 costs the fund
industry approximately $7.6 million per year.\10\ Based on responses
from individuals in the money market fund industry, the staff estimates
that some of the largest fund complexes have created computer programs
for maintaining and preserving compliance records for rule 2a-7. Based
on a cost of $0.0000231 per dollar of assets under management for large
funds, the staff estimates that total annualized capital/startup costs
range from $0 for small funds to $37.5 million for all large funds.
Commission staff further estimates that, even absent the requirements
of rule 2a-7, money market funds would spend at least half of the
amount for capital costs ($19 million) and for record preservation
($3.8 million) to establish and maintain these records and the systems
for preserving them as a part of sound business practices to ensure
diversification and minimal credit risk in a portfolio for a fund that
seeks to maintain a stable price per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The amount of assets under management in individual money
market funds ranges from approximately $400,000 to $109 billion.
    \9\ For purpose of this PRA submission, Commission staff used
the following categories for fund sizes: (i) small--money market
funds with $50 million or less in assets under management, (ii)
medium--money market funds with more than $50 million up to and
including $1 billion in assets under management; and (iii) large--
money market funds with more than $1 billion in assets under
management.
    \10\ The staff estimated the annual cost of preserving the
required books and records by identifying the annual costs incurred
by several funds and then relating this total cost to the average
net assets of these funds during the year. With a total of $2.2
billion under management in small funds, $174.1 billion under
management in medium funds and $1623.8 billion under management in
large funds, the costs of preservation were estimated as follows:
(0.0000204 x $2.2 billion) + (0.0000005 x $174.1) + (0.0000046 x
$1623.8 billion) = $7.6 million. See supra note 9 regarding sizes of
large, medium, and small funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collections of information required by rule 2a-7 are necessary
to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the Commission will
not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    General comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments
must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    February 27, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3160 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 30443-30445]
[DOCID:fr27my08-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0107, Notice 1]

Spyker Automobielen B.V.; Receipt of Application for Limited
Extension of Temporary Exemption From Certain Requirements of FMVSS No.
208

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for limited extension of a
Temporary Exemption from provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR Part 555, Spyker
Automobielen B.V. (``Spyker'') has applied for a limited extension of a
previously received temporary exemption from certain requirements of
FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for the Spyker C8 vehicle
line. Spyker requests extension of its temporary exemption for certain
advanced air bag requirements. The basis of the application is that
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard.
    NHTSA is publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), and has made
no judgment on the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than June 26, 2008.
    Comments: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described below. You may submit comments identified by docket number in
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments

received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket in order to read background
documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any
time, or to M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20950, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:
202-366-3820; E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Discussion

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \1\ The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving
protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in
moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a
comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the
adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats. The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004
model year.
    Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air bag
requirements until September 1, 2006, but their efforts to bring their
respective vehicles into compliance with these requirements began
several years earlier. However, because the new requirements were
challenging, major air bag suppliers concentrated their efforts on
working with large volume manufacturers, and thus, until recently,
small volume manufacturers had limited access to advanced air bag
technology. Because of the nature of the requirements for protecting
out-of-position occupants, ``off-the-shelf'' systems could not be
readily adopted. Further complicating matters, because small volume
manufacturers build so few vehicles, the costs of developing custom air
bag systems compared to potential benefits discouraged some air bag
suppliers from working with small volume manufacturers.
    The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from
air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the
area of consumer education and manufacturers' providing depowered air
bags were successful in reducing air bag fatalities even before
advanced air bag requirements were implemented.
    As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implication
of any temporary exemptions granted by this agency. In the present
case, we are seeking comments on a petition for a limited extension of
a temporary exemption for certain advanced air bag requirements
submitted by a manufacturer of high-performance sports cars.

II. Overview of Petition for Economic Hardship Exemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Spyker has petitioned the agency for a limited extension of a
temporary exemption from certain requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
basis for the application is that compliance would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. The requested exemption would apply to the
Spyker C8 vehicle line and would extend a portion of the original
exemption for a period of 30 months beginning on June 15, 2008, ending
on December 15, 2010. The requested extension would apply to certain
advanced air bag requirements, specifically the requirements in S19,
S21, S23, and S25. A copy of the petition \2\ is available for review
and has been placed in the docket of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The company requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR
part 512 for certain business and financial information submitted as
part of its petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the
information placed in the docket does not contain such information
that the agency has determined to be confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory Background for Economic Hardship Exemption

    A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113).
    In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether a second vehicle manufacturer also
might be deemed the manufacturer of that vehicle. The statutory
provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do
not include any provision indicating that a manufacturer might have
substantial responsibility as manufacturer of a vehicle simply because
it owns or controls a second manufacturer that assembled that vehicle.
However, the agency considers the statutory definition of
``manufacturer'' (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)) to be sufficiently broad to
include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. Thus, NHTSA has
stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a sponsor and thus a
manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a second manufacturer if the
first manufacturer had a substantial role in the development and
manufacturing process of that vehicle.

IV. Petition

    Background. A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship
exemption if its total motor vehicle production in its most recent year
of production does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (15 U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)). Spyker manufactured 94
automobiles in 2006 and estimated a total production of 106 automobiles
in 2007. Sixty Spyker automobiles were imported into the U.S. in 2006,
and Spyker projects that U.S. imports will total 70 Spyker

automobiles in 2007. Spyker is a wholly owned subsidiary of Spyker Cars
NV, a publicly traded Dutch company. Spyker stated that it is unaware
of any other automobile manufacturer having an ownership interest in
Spyker.\3\ Moreover, Spyker stated that Spyker Cars NV has no ownership
interest in any other vehicle manufacturer, and is not under any common
control with another automobile manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Only parties with an interest of more than 5% are known and
need to register with the Dutch authority for financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2005, NHTSA granted Spyker a three-year hardship exemption
from the ``basic'' air bag requirements and advanced air bag provisions
of FMVSS No. 208 (S<IP_ADDRESS>; S14), and Part 581, expiring on June 15,
2008 (70 FR 39007; July 6, 2005). In this same grant, NHTSA also
exempted Spyker from S7 of FMVSS No. 108, for the first 10 Spyker C8
vehicles imported into the United States.
    Requested exemption. Spyker has applied for a limited extension of
that exemption. Spyker requested an additional 30 months for the
exemption from the child and 5th percentile adult female driver out-of-
position portions of the advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS No. 208
(S19, S21, S23, and S25).\4\ Spyker's current exemption extends until
June 15, 2008, and Spyker requested a two-and-a-half year extension
that would exempt Spyker's C8 vehicle line from the listed advanced air
bag requirements through December 15, 2010.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The previous exemption covered these provisions by including
S14.
    \5\ Spyker submitted a supplement to their petition on April 7,
2008, which will be posted in this docket, and which included
updated financial information from 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Economic hardship. Spyker stated that its previously established
financial hardship \6\ continues, in part due to the start-up nature of
the company. Specifically, Spyker's financial information submission
showed a net operating loss of 13,000,000 Euros ($16,900,000) from 2004
to 2006. Spyker projected a further loss in 2007 of 6,500,000 Euros
($8,450,000).\7\ Moreover, based on 2008-2010 projections, Spyker
estimated that if the limited extension is denied, Spyker will bear a
loss of over 2,000,000 Euros ($2,600,000) during that time. Spyker also
stated that the loss of sales in the U.S. that would result if the
limited extension is denied could not be made up in the rest of the
world because the U.S. is the largest and most important market for the
vehicle. Spyker argued that such consequences demonstrate ``substantial
economic hardship'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 70 FR 39007 (July 6, 2005).
    \7\ All dollar values are based on an exchange rate of 1 Euro =
$1.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spyker recently submitted to NHTSA a supplement to their petition
because Spyker recently updated its accounts for 2007. Spyker stated in
its supplement to its petition that 2007 losses now total 16,000,000
Euros ($20,800,000), and stated that this higher number was due to
their parent company having sold its interest in its Formula 1 (``F1'')
racing team, and extraordinary financing and consulting costs. Spyker
stated in this supplement to its petition that the new financial
statement information is in further support of the substantial economic
hardship criterion. Both Spyker's original petition and its recently
filed supplement to the petition are available in this docket.
    Good faith efforts to comply. Spyker stated that when it filed for
the original exemption, the C8 vehicle line had no air bag system at
all, and that the windshield design does not permit a top-mounted air
bag on the passenger side, thereby precluding the use of a low risk
deployment system. Spyker indicated that it has spent over 3,500,000
Euros bringing the C8 vehicle line into compliance with all of the
high-speed belted and unbelted crash test requirements of the Advanced
Air Bag rule by developing an ``interim'' driver air bag system for the
C vehicle line. However, it stated that it has not been able to bring
the vehicle into compliance with the child out-of-position requirements
(S19, S21, and S23), and the 5th percentile adult female out-of-
position requirements for the driver seat (S25). Spyker stated that
despite efforts to involve numerous potential suppliers, it has not
identified any that are willing to work with the company to develop an
automatic suppression system for compliance with S19, S21, and S23.
Spyker has budgeted an additional 3,500,000 Euros for 2008-2010 to
develop, test and build a fully-compliant advanced air bag system for
the new C line vehicle. Spyker also indicated that by the time its new
D vehicle line is launched, Spyker will have spent 5,500,000 Euros
developing for this new line an advanced air bag system fully compliant
with FMVSS No. 208.
    Spyker further indicated that it plans to re-engineer the C vehicle
line for model year 2011, at which time the D line advanced air bag
system will be incorporated into the new C line, making the redesigned
C line fully compliant with all advanced air bag requirements. Spyker
stated that it will use the 30 month extension period, if granted, to
develop, test, tool and implement the redesigned model.
    Spyker argues that an exemption would be in the public interest.
The petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding that
the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and
would not have a significant adverse impact on safety. Specifically:
    1. Spyker stated that the exempted vehicles will comply with all
FMVSSs other than the provisions that are the subject of this extension
request.
    2. The petitioner stated that an exemption will benefit U.S.
employment and U.S. companies because Spyker vehicles are distributed
by a U.S. company, Spyker of North America, and are sold and serviced
in the U.S. through a network of 17 dealers. Spyker argued that denial
of an extension will negatively impact these companies.
    3. Spyker argued that if the exemption is not granted, U.S.
consumer choice would be harmed and that the agency has long maintained
that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act seeks, if
possible, to avoid limiting consumer choice.
    4. Petitioner argued that given its exotic design and high-
performance nature, the C vehicle line is not expected to be used
extensively, nor is it expected to carry children with any frequency.
    5. Spyker stated that as of the submission date of its application
for extension, approximately 60 exempted C line Spykers have been
imported into the U.S. and there have been no reports of any air bag-
related injuries.
    6. Spyker stated that an important safety feature on the C line
offers enhanced occupant protection. The petitioner stated that
occupants are positioned in a protective ``cell'' because the main
chassis structure is built around them.

V. Issuance of Notice of Final Action

    We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: May 19, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-11699 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Federal Register Notice of Tentative Approval for Revisions to
Florida’s Public Water System Supervision Program

FROM:	J. I. Palmer, Jr.

		Regional Administrator

TO:		Vickie Reed, Federal Register Liaison

		Regulatory Development Branch, Headquarters

	Attached is the Federal Register Typesetting Request form and four
copies of the Notice of Tentative Approval regarding revisions to the
Public Water System Supervision Program for the State of Florida.
Additionally, this Federal Register has been entered into the Federal
Docket Management System for the Government Printing Office in preparing
this document for publication.

	The billing code 6560-50-P is cited on the attached Federal Register
Typesetting Request (EPA Form 2350-15) to ensure the typesetting
discount.

	If you have any questions regarding this request or need further
information, please contact Larry Myers at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Jennifer
Gardner-Shadle at (40) 562-9436.

Attachments


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75716-75718]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30432]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63397; File No. SR-BX-2010-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change as Modified
by Amendment No. 1 To Extend, Through December 31, 2011, the Pilot
Program That Permits Certain Classes To Be Quoted in Penny Increments
on BOX

November 30, 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 November 24, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (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 self-regulatory organization. On November 30,
2010, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 33 (Penny Pilot
Program) of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC
(``BOX'') to extend, through December 31, 2011, the pilot program that
permits certain classes to be quoted in penny increments on BOX
(``Penny Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the effective time period of the
Penny Pilot Program on BOX that is currently scheduled to expire on
December 31, 2010, for an additional year, through December 31,
2011.\3\ The Penny Pilot Program permits certain classes to be

quoted in penny increments on BOX. The minimum price variation for all
classes included in the Penny Pilot Program, except for the QQQQs, SPY
and IWM, will continue to be $0.01 for all quotations in option series
that are quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all
quotations in option series that are quoted at $3 per contract or
greater. The QQQQs, SPY and IWM, will continue to be quoted in $0.01
increments for all options series. The Exchange is not currently
proposing any changes to the classes included within the Penny Pilot
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot Program has been in effect on BOX since
January 26, 2007. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55155
(Jan. 23, 2007), 72 FR 4741 (Feb. 1, 2007) (SR-BSE-2006-49). The
Penny Pilot Program was later extended through September 27, 2007.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56149 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR
42450 (Aug. 2, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-38). A subsequent rule filing by
the Exchange on September 27, 2007 initiated a two-phased expansion
of the Penny Pilot Program. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
56566 (Sept. 27, 2007), 72 FR 56400 (Oct. 3, 2007) (S-aRBSE-2007-
40). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57566 (March 26,
2008), 73 FR 18013 (April 2, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-20). The Penny Pilot
Program was then extended and expanded a number of times and is set
to expire on December 31, 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 59629 (March 26, 2009), 74 FR 15021 (April 2, 2009) (SR-BX-
2009-017); 60213 (July 1, 2009), 74 FR 32998 (July 9, 2009) (SR-BX-
2009-032); 60886 (Oct. 27, 2009), 74 FR 56897 (Nov. 3, 2009) (SR-BX-
2009-067); 60950 (Nov. 6, 2009), 74 FR 58666 (Nov. 6, 2009) (SR-BX-
2009-069); 61456 (Feb. 1, 2010), 75 FR 6235 (Feb. 8, 2010) (SR-BX-
2010-011); 62039 (May 5, 2010), 75 FR 26313 (May 11, 2010) (SR-BX-
2010-032) and 62615 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR 47875 (Aug. 9, 2010) (SR-
BX-2010-052). The extension of the effective date is the only change
to the Penny Pilot Program being proposed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Section
33(b) of the BOX Rules to continue to be able to replace, on a semi-
annual basis, any Pilot Program classes that have been delisted. These
delisted classes will be replaced by the next most actively traded
multiply listed options classes that are not yet included in the Pilot
Program, based on trading activity in the previous six months. The
replacement classes may be added to the Pilot Program on the second
trading day following January 1, 2011 and July 1, 2011.\4\ The
replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity for the
six-month period beginning June 1, 2010 and ending November 30, 2010,
for the January 2011 replacement, and the six month period beginning
December 1, 2010 and ending May 31, 2011 for the July 2011
replacements. The Exchange will employ the same parameters to
prospective replacement classes as approved and applicable under the
Pilot Program, including excluding high-priced underlying securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The replacement classes will be announced to BOX
Participants via Regulatory Circular and published by the Exchange
on its Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, BOX agrees to submit to the Commission such reports
regarding the Penny Pilot Program as the Commission may request. Such
reports may include: (1) Data and analysis on the number of quotations
generated for options included in the Pilot Program; (2) an assessment
of the quotation spreads for the options included in the Pilot Program;
(3) an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of
BOX's automated systems; (4) data reflecting the size and depth of
markets; and (5) any capacity problems or other problems that arose
related to the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange
addressed them.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the proposed extension will allow the Penny Pilot
Program to remain in effect on BOX without interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Basis for Summary Effectiveness Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) or
for Accelerated Effectiveness Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)

    This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\8\ This proposed rule change does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), BOX provided the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change along with a brief description and the text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-BX-2010-084 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-BX-2010-084. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-BX-2010-084 and should be
submitted on or before December 27, 2010.

    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. 2010-30432 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 145)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37932-37933]
[DOCID:fr30jy09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. RM09-17-000]

Annual Update of Filing Fees

July 23, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; annual update of Commission filing fees.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission issues this
update of its filing fees. This notice provides the yearly update using
data in the Commission's Management, Administrative, and Payroll System
to calculate the new fees. The purpose of updating is to adjust the
fees on the basis of the Commission's costs for Fiscal Year 2008.

DATES: Effective Date: August 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Elizabeth Hensley, Office of the
Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Room 42-65, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Document Availability: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    From FERC's Web site on the Internet, this information is available
in the eLibrary (formerly FERRIS). The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field and follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Annual Update of Filing Fees in Part 381

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing
this notice to update filing fees that the Commission assesses for
specific services and benefits provided to identifiable beneficiaries.
Pursuant to 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is establishing updated fees
on the basis of the Commission's Fiscal Year 2008 costs. The adjusted
fees announced in this notice are effective August 31, 2009. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a major rule within
the meaning of section 251 of Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is submitting
this final rule to both houses of the United States Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States.

    Please Note:  Beginning in Fiscal Year 2010, the Commission will
update filing fees in the fall rather than in the spring or summer.
As a result, revised filing fees, based on Fiscal Year 2009 costs,
will be published in the fall of 2009. The annual update will occur
in the fall of every year thereafter.

    The new fee schedule is as follows:

Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act

    1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR 284.123(b)(2).
(18 CFR 381.403)--$11,220.

Fees Applicable to General Activities

    1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except under Part
I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR 381.302(a))--$22,550.
    2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order:

Amount in Controversy

    $0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)) --$100.
    $10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b))--$600.
    $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a))--$32,920.
    3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of adjustment:

Amount in Controversy

    $0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b))--$100.
    $10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b))--$600.
    $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a))--$17,260.
    4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of General Counsel.
(18 CFR 381.305(a))--$6,470.

Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines

    1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR 284.224.
(18 CFR 381.207(b))--$1,000.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * This fee has not been changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers

    1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power production
facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))--$19,390.
    2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration facility.
(18 CFR 381.505(a))--$21,950.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381

    Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural gas, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Thomas R. Herlihy,
Executive Director.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 381,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 381--FEES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 381 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, 2601-2645;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C.
1-85.

Sec.  381.302   [Amended]

0
2. In 381.302, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$20,970'' and
adding ``$22,550'' in its place.

Sec.  381.303   [Amended]

0
3. In 381.303, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$30,620'' and
adding ``$32,920'' in its place.

Sec.  381.304  [Amended]

0
4. In 381.304, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$16,050'' and
adding ``$17,260'' in its place.

Sec.  381.305   [Amended]

0
5. In 381.305, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$6,010'' and
adding ``$6,470'' in its place.

Sec.  381.403   [Amended]

0
6. Section 381.403 is amended by removing ``$10,440'' and adding
``$11,220'' in its place.

Sec.  381.505   [Amended]

0
7. In 381.505, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$18,030'' and
adding ``$19,390'' in its place and by removing ``$20,410'' and adding
``$21,950'' in its place.

[FR Doc. E9-18077 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37864-37865]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2476-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Techren Solar
II LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Techren Solar
II LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure
    (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene
or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability, is August 19, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 29, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16490 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34022-34023]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-E-0029]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; TAZVERIK

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for TAZVERIK and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are incorrect may submit either electronic
or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August 27, 2021.
Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period by December 27, 2021. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before August 27, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of August 27, 2021. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-E-0029 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; TAZVERIK.'' Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic

Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally
provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so
long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product,
medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to
regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these
acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for
determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, TAZVERIK
(tazemetostat). TAZVERIK is indicated for the treatment of adults and
pediatric patients aged 16 years and older with metastatic or locally
advanced epithelioid sarcoma not eligible for complete resection. This
indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall
response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this
indication may be contingent upon verification and description of
clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Subsequent to this approval,
the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for TAZVERIK
(U.S. Patent No. 8,410,088) from Epizyme, Inc., and the USPTO requested
FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent
term restoration. In a letter dated March 1, 2021, FDA advised the
USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period and that the approval of TAZVERIK represented the first
permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the
USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
TAZVERIK is 1,618 days. Of this time, 1,372 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 246 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
August 21, 2015. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date
the investigational new drug application became effective was on August
21, 2015.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505 of the FD&C Act: May 23, 2019.
FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application
(NDA) for TAZVERIK (NDA 211723) was initially submitted on May 23,
2019.
    3. The date the application was approved: January 23, 2020. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 211723 was approved on January
23, 2020.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 650 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13743 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25555-25558]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09271]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0802; FRL 9909-23-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS15

Technical Amendments to Inadvertent Errors in Air Quality
Designations for Fine Particles, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and
Sulfur Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes technical amendments to address several
minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in the regulatory text
establishing the air quality designations for certain areas in fourteen
states for the 1997 Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, the 2008 Lead
NAAQS, the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS and the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. The states are: Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. This
action does not propose to change the designation for any area. In the
``Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are making the same
technical amendments as a direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0802, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0802.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0802.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0802, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code:
6102T, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0802. 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-OAR-
2013-0802. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov, or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your email address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the 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 the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the 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. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0802.
    For additional information about the 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 index at
http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA's Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Center 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
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
    Documents related to the affected designations are available in the
following dockets:

Designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0061;
Designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0476;
Designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0443;
Designations for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0572; and
Designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0233.
    In addition, the EPA has established Web sites for the designation
rulemakings at: http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/, http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations, http://www.epa.gov/leaddesignations/, http://www.epa.gov/no2designations/ and http://www.epa.gov/so2designations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Oldham, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    Whenever the EPA establishes a new NAAQS, section 107(d) of the
Clean Air Act requires the EPA to designate all areas of the country as
meeting or not meeting the new NAAQS, or as unclassifiable where
available information does not support a determination whether an area
is meeting the NAAQS. The area designations and boundaries for each
NAAQS are set forth in tables in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
at 40 CFR part 81. This action proposes technical amendments to minor,
inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in the 40 CFR part 81 regulatory
text concerning the air quality designations for certain areas in
fourteen states for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS and the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. These states are: Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. This action does not
propose to change the designation for any area.
    We are publishing a direct final rule in the ``Rules'' section of
this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action
and anticipate no adverse comment. We explain our reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final rule. The regulatory text
for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule
published in ``Rules'' section of this Federal Register.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish a
timely notice in the Federal Register to withdraw the direct final rule
or portions thereof. The portions that are not withdrawn will become
effective on the date identified in the direct final rule,
notwithstanding adverse comment on any other portion. We would address
all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. We do not intend to provide a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSEES section of this document.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will be available on the World Wide Web. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this action will be
posted on the EPA's Web site www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    Submitting CBI: Do not submit this information to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not

contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0802.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action proposes technical amendments to minor, inadvertent and
nonsubstantive errors in prior area designations. This type of action
is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not propose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action proposes to correct
minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in prior area designations
and does not require any party to perform an information collection.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;'' (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
proposes technical amendments to address several minor, inadvertent and
nonsubstantive errors in the regulatory text concerning the air quality
designations for certain areas in prior designation actions and does
not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. The action does not propose
an enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action
corrects minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in prior area
designations

E. 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action proposes technical
amendments to minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive errors in prior
area designations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action. In spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action only
proposes technical amendments to minor, inadvertent and nonsubstantive
errors in prior area designations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress,

through the Office of Management and Budget, explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not
consider the use of any VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action proposes technical amendments to minor,
inadvertent, nonsubstantive errors in the designations for certain
areas.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-09271 Filed 5-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P