[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16486-16487]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC13-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-606); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information
collection, FERC-606 (Notification of Request for Federal Authorization
and Requests for Further Information), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission issued a Notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 76016,
12/26/2012) requesting public comments. FERC received no comments on
the FERC-606 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by April 15,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB (identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0241) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory

Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC13-6-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-606: Notification of Request for Federal Authorization
and Requests for Further Information.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0241.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-606 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The FERC-606 information collection requires agencies
(Federal agency or officer, or State agency or officer acting pursuant
to delegated Federal authority, responsible for a Federal
authorization) responsible for issuing, conditioning, or denying
requests for Federal authorizations for a proposed natural gas project
to report regarding the status of an authorization request. This
reporting requirement is intended to allow agencies to assist the
Commission to make better informed decisions in establishing due dates
for agencies' decisions. The Commission authorizes the construction and
operation of proposed natural gas projects under NGA Sections 3 and 7.
However, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over every aspect of
each natural gas project. For a natural gas project to progress the
Commission must approve and several different agencies must typically
reach favorable findings regarding other aspects of the project. To
coordinate better the activities of the separate agencies with varying
responsibilities over proposed natural gas projects, the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) modified FERC's role. Section 313 of EPAct
2005 \1\ directs FERC to establish a schedule for agencies to review
requests for federal authorizations required for a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Amended 15 U.S.C. 717n (Section 15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: Government agencies responsible for issuing
authorizations for proposed natural gas projects.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the total
Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as 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. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

        FERC-606: Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and Requests for Further Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Number of responses      Total number of      Average burden hours     Estimated total
Number of respondents      per respondent           responses             per response         annual  burden
(A)                                  (B)          (A) x (B) = (C)                  (D)                      (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                1                      1                      1                      4                      4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $276 [4
hours / 2,080 hours/year \3\ * $143,540/year \4\ = $276].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 2,080 hours = 52 weeks * 40 hours per week (i.e., 1 year of
full-time employment).
    \4\ Average salary plus benefits per full-time equivalent
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: March 11, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06064 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


eRulemaking Initiative Public Forum August 2004 2 Agenda Purpose: Discuss the eRulemaking Initiative and the development of a new federal docket management system.

Overview of Federal Rulemaking   Background on Federal Rulemaking

Current Regulatory Environment   Regulations. gov   Questions and Answers

Future Regulatory Environment   Design of the new federal docket management system   Feedback

Other considerations 3 Overview of Federal Rulemaking

Over 150 federal entities involved in federal regulatory activities   From large Departments to small Commissions

Regulations impact all aspects of our existence   Public health, environmental controls, snowmobiling access

Access dependent on understanding process   Must know agency responsible for developing regulation in order to access information on it

Online systems exist   More than 20 agencies currently operate on line systems that accept and/ or post comments on line 4 Overview of Federal Rulemaking Questions:

Have you participated in the federal rulemaking process?

  If so, how did you find the process of gathering information, providing comments, and keeping informed?

  What was your level of satisfaction?

Have you used any of the current on line systems?

  Were they easy to use and navigate?

  What other features did you like? What did you not like?

How did you use this information ( for what purpose)?

How much did you spend doing this ( in dollars or man hours)? 5 Strengthening E Democracy

President's Management Agenda   Citizen centered, not bureaucracy centered   Results oriented   Market based, actively promoting innovation ° E rulemaking, one of the expanding electronic government initiatives

E Government Act of 2002   Section 206 requires all agencies to make public regulatory dockets electronically accessible. 6 eRulemaking Initiative eRulemaking Vision: help citizens easily access and participate in a high quality,

efficient and open rulemaking process Initiative Goals:

Expand public understanding of the rulemaking process   Provide easy and consistent way for public to search, view, and comment on proposed federal rules

Improve the quality of federal rulemaking decisions   Evolve regulatory policies and outcomes through greater quality,

management efficiency, and transparency of the rulemaking process   Provide useful tools for federal regulation writers that create efficiencies within non standard processes   Ultimately ensure public is better protected, safer, and more secure in their daily lives

Increase the amount, breadth, and ease of citizen and intergovernmental access and participation in rulemaking   Use the Internet to enhance public access to information on federal rulemaking   Cultivate public participation in federal decision making 7 eRulemaking Initiative Scope: Focuses on the more than 150 federal entities ( e. g., Cabinet Departments, Independent Agencies, Boards, Commissions) that enact rules Partner Departments/ Agencies:

EPA   lead partner

Federal Communication Commission

General Services Administration

Government Printing Office

Health and Human Services

Homeland Security

Housing and Urban Development

Small Business Administration

Equal Employment Opp. Comm.

National Archives and Records Admin.

Agriculture

Commerce

Defense

Energy

Interior

Justice

Labor

Transportation

Treasury 8 eRulemaking Initiative Project Plan:

Module 1: Regulations. gov ( Public Access 1/ 03)

  Web site for the public to find, view, retrieve Federal Register rule notices and comment on those federal regulations open for comment

Module 2: Federal Docket Management System   Expansion of capabilities of Regulations. gov allowing public to search all documents in a federal rulemaking docket ( e. g., Federal Register notices,

scientific and legal analyses, and public comments)

  Staged roll out to agencies in six phases   Public access early 2005

Module 3: Rule writer eToolbox   Internet & desktop tools available for federal rulewriters and the public   Tools, templates and best practices can assist with rule writing   gather,

process, analyze and communicate information 9 Module 1   www. Regulations. gov

Provides one stop ability to find, view,

and comment on all federal rules

4.3 million total hits ( 15,000 per day),

440,000 unique visitors

8,300 comments

2.6 million pages viewed or downloaded ( since July 2003)

Jointly operated by NARA, GPO and EPA

Awards:

  2004 Public Access to Gov Info 2004 Public Access to Gov Info Award Award ( Am Assn of Law Libraries)

( Am Assn of Law Libraries)

  2004 AFFIRM Service to the Citizen 2004 AFFIRM Service to the Citizen   2004 2004 Excellence. gov Excellence. gov finalist finalist   2003 Grace Hopper Award 2003 Grace Hopper Award   2003 2003 Colborn Colborn Award Award   2003 2003 eGov eGov Pioneer Pioneer   2003 FOSE Showcase of 2003 FOSE Showcase of Excellence finalist Excellence finalist   2003 Citizen Service Secure 2003 Citizen Service Secure EBiz EBiz Leadership Leadership Search Results HTML View PDF View Submit a Comment Comment Form Confirmation of Comment Submission 28 Current Regulatory Environment Questions:

Have you ever used www. Regulations. gov?

What do you think of Regulations. gov?

  Is it easy to use and understand?

  What features do you like? Dislike?

What features and services would you like that Regulations. gov does not currently offer? 29 Future Regulatory Environment Past

Spend money and time ( hours/ days) searching

  right agency

  docket room,

  and reading hundreds of paper files Present

Regulations. gov posts all rules open for comment on Internet   No cost   Anyone and anyplace   Minutes to find,

view, submit comments Future

Federal docket management system will post rules, notices, public comments on Internet   No cost, anyone and anyplace, in minutes   See all documents in docket ( scientific analyses, comments)

  Accept paper, email,

webform, fax   Electronic records management   Listserve 30 Module 2  Federal Docket Management System

Builds upon Regulations. gov to establish a robust docket management system   Serves as a central repository for federal rulemaking, supporting materials ( e. g., scientific, legal and economic analyses) and public comments   Includes non rulemaking documents such as Information Collection Requests that agencies can post for public comment

Key features:

  Image and text based system   Simple and sophisticated search capabilities ( Boolean and compound)

  Email notifications   Citizen and agency reporting capabilities   Data import and export   Electronic system of records   Secure access ( log in, authentication)

  Modular development for expansion Home Page & Search Functionality Preliminary Draft These screen shots are meant to serve for discussion purposes and are not to be considered final design and format. Quick Search/ Home Page Preliminary Draft Quick Search Results by Topic Preliminary Draft Quick Search Results  Index Preliminary Draft Quick Search Results   Detail Record Preliminary Draft Advanced Search Advanced Search Preliminary Draft Advanced Document Search Results Preliminary Draft Advanced Document Search Results  Details Preliminary Draft " Notify Me" and Reports Home Page Preliminary Draft " Notify Me" Quick Search Results Preliminary Draft " Notify Me" Registration Preliminary Draft Reports  Top Requested Dockets Report Preliminary Draft Reports  Recently Published FR Items Report Preliminary Draft Reports  Document Type Report Preliminary Draft Reports  Daily Filings Report Preliminary Draft Comment Management Comment Management  Home/ Quick Search View Preliminary Draft Comments Management  Search Results Preliminary Draft Comments Management  Docket Detail View Preliminary Draft Comment Management  Create Comment Comment Management  Review Comment Submission View Comment Management  Submit Preliminary Draft Comment Management  Printer Friendly 56 Feedback on Module 2 Questions:

What do you think of the planned federal docket management system?

  Is it easy to use and understand?

  What features do you like? Dislike?

Does it contain the right features and services ( e. g., tracking federal rules, search functions, comment submission)? If not, which one would you want to see included?

What additional services would you like to see the system provide?

What functions in the system would be most beneficial to how stakeholders do business?

Other considerations? 57 eRulemaking Initiative Public Benefits

One stop Internet access to all federal rulemakings and dockets

Ability to search, navigate, view, retrieve,

download, and comment on both rules and nonregulatory content

Cross agency searches

Increased access to and participation in federal decision making

Greater transparency, increased understanding

Improved quality of federal rules 58

Purpose: Strengthen federal rulemaking by deploying information technology tools to assist in the development, review, and publication of federal regulations and the analysis of public comments.

  Tools will be available to federal regulation writers and the public

Tools to Help Gather Information:

  Electronic library ( or reading room) on topics of interest   Collaboration Zone for Managers/ Rule writers/ Lawyers to hold virtual meeting

Tools to Help Process Information:

  Workflow tools to facilitate/ enhance the drafting of a rule   Scheduling tool to keep process on track/ on time

Tools to Help Analyze Information:

  Content Categorization   Online Models ( Economic, Environmental)

  Data Mining Tools

Tools to Help Communicate Information:

  Dashboard to display the real time performance of the process   Online rule writing handbook Module 3   Rulewriter's eToolbox 59 Other Considerations Questions:

What additional services would you like to see the system provide?

What functions in the system would be most beneficial to how stakeholders do business? 60 eRulemaking Initiative

Additional comments can be provided to:

Kristin Tensuan Program Outreach and Communications US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW ( MC: 2822V)

Washington, DC 20406 tensuan. kristin@ epa. gov 202/ 632 0338

Harvard University is also hosting on line dialogue on the initiative and its projects 61 eRulemaking Initiative

Initiative Contact Information Rick Otis Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Environmental Information US Environmental Protection Agency otis. rick@ epa. gov 202 564 6665 Oscar Morales Director eRulemaking Initiative US Environmental Protection Agency morales. oscar@ epa. gov 202 566 2141


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 50948]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1713; Summary Notice No. 2023-26]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Textron
eAviation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-1713
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael H. Harrison, AIR-646, Federal
Aviation Administration, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in El Segundo, CA on July 27, 2023.
Thuan Nguyen,
Manager, Technical Writing Section.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-1713.
    Petitioner: Textron eAviation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(i),
21.181(a)(4), 21.190(a), 43.7(g), 43.7(h), 61 .23(c)(1)(iii),
61.31(I)(2)(vi), 61.89(b)(1), 61.303(b)(4), 61 .305(a)(2), 61.315(a),
61.315(c), 61.317, 61.321, 61.325, 61.327(b), 61.327(b)(2), 61.403(b),
61.411, 61.415, 61.415(e), 61.415(9), 61.417, 61.419,
61.423(a)(2)(iii)(A), 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(D), 61.423(a)(2)(iv),
61.423(a)(2)(iv)(A), 61.423(a)(2)(iv)(B), 61.423(b), and 61.429(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: Textron eAviation (Textron) seeks an
exemption from Sec. Sec.  21.181(a)(3)(i), 21.181(a)(4), 21.190(a),
43.7(g), 43.7(h), 61 .23(c)(1)(iii), 61.31(I)(2)(vi), 61.89(b)(1),
61.303(b)(4), 61.305(a)(2), 61.315(a), 61.315(c), 61.317, 61.321,
61.325, 61.327(b), 61.327(b)(2), 61.403(b), 61.411, 61.415, 61.415(e),
61.415(9), 61.417, 61.419, 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(A), 61.423(a)(2)(iii)(D),
61.423(a)(2)(iv), 61.423(a)(2)(iv)(A), 61.423(a)(2)(iv)(B), 61.423(b),
and 61.429(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. This relief, if
granted, would allow Textron to apply for an airworthiness certificate,
maintain, and operate the Model Virus SW 128 light-sport airplane,
which is equipped with an electric powerplant.

[FR Doc. 2023-16426 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67480-67481]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0008]

Standard on Commercial Diving Operations; 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 comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified in the Commercial Diving Operations Standard (29 CFR part
1910, subpart T).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
January 3, 2012.

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 your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0008, 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 (OSHA-2011-0008) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). 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 also may contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney 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).
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA-95) (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), OSHA published a notice in the Federal Register
on March 16, 2011 (76 FR 14432, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0008) requesting
public comment on its proposed extension of the information collection
requirements referenced in the existing Standard on Commercial Diving
Operations (29 CFR part 1910, Subpart

T, ``the Standard''). The notice was part of a preclearance
consultation program intended to provide those interested parties the
opportunity to comment on OSHA's request for an extension by OMB of a
previous approval of the information collection requirements in the
Standard. The Agency received nine comments in response to its notice.
    However, as a result of the Standards Improvement Project--Phase
III (SIP-III) final rule published on June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33590), the
provision that required employers to ``transfer records'' to NIOSH when
they ceased to do business (formerly 29 CFR 1910.440(b)(5)) was
revoked. In accordance with the PRA-95, prior to issuance of the final
rule, on May 27, 2011, OSHA submitted a revised Information Collection
Request (ICR) to OMB requesting approval to remove this requirement and
the associated burden hours and costs. On August 11, 2011, OMB issued a
Notice of Action (NOA) indicating approval of the request.
    In addition, the NOA instructed the Department of Labor to publish
a second notice in the Federal Register to solicit comments on its
proposal to extend OMB's approval of the information collection
requirements. In response, this notice fulfills the NOA instructions.
The Agency will respond to any comments submitted in response to this
notice and submit the final ICR to OMB.
    The Standard applies to diving and related support operations
conducted by employers involved in general industry, construction, ship
repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and longshoring, and specifies
equipment and procedures that prevent injury and death among workers
exposed to hazards associated with diving and diving support
operations.
    The Standard contains a number of paperwork requirements. Following
is a list of provisions containing these requirements.
    Section 1910.401(b), Sections 1910.410(a)(3) and (a)(4), Section
1910.420(a), Section 1910.421(b), Section 1910.421(f), Section
1910.421(h), Section 1910.422(e), Sections 1910.423(b)(1)(ii) through
(b)(2), Section 1910.423(d), Section 1910.423(e), Sections 1910.430(a),
(b)(4), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3)(i), (f)(3)(ii), and (g)(2), and Sections
1910.440(a)(2) and (b).

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 to
protect workers, 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 it retain OMB approval of its current
burden hour estimate of 205,096 hours. The Agency will summarize any
comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this
summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Commercial Diving Operations (29 CFR part 1910, subpart T).
    OMB Number: 1218-0069.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Governments.
    Number of Respondents: 3,000.
    Frequency: On occasion; Annually.
    Total Responses: 4,002,965.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 3 minutes (.05 hour) to
replace the safe practices manual to 1 hour to develop a new manual.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 205,096.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

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

Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this Information Collection Request
(ICR) (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0008). You may supplement electronic
submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to
mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or a fax
submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the
section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must
clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and
docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information, such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 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. 4-2010
(75 FR 55355).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 27, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-28267 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 64402]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-24866]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65379; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Market-Maker Trade Prevention Order

September 22, 2011.

Correction

    In notice document 2011-24866 appearing on pages 60108-60110 in the
issue of September 28, 2011, make the following correction:
    On page 60108, in the third column, the Release No. and File No.,
which were inadvertently omitted from the document heading, are added
to read as set forth above.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-24866 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: January 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 4062-4063]
[DOCID:fr22ja09-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59250; File No. SR-ISE-2008-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Alternative
Primary Market Makers

January 14, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On November 21, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to the introduction of
Alternative Primary Market Makers (``Alternative PMMs'') on the
Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 15, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59053 (December 4,
2008), 73 FR 76078 (the ``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 802 to provide for
Alternative PMMs. Currently, when the ISE lists new options classes, it
allocates them to one of its Primary Market Makers (``PMMs'') under ISE
Rule 802. Pursuant to power delegated to the Board, an Allocation
Committee, which consists of representatives of Electronic Access
Members, makes allocation decisions according to the guidelines
contained in ISE Rule 802. Under ISE Rule 802, allocations are
voluntary.\4\ To better enable the Exchange to list and retain options
classes that PMMs do not wish to trade, ISE proposes to appoint
Competitive Market Makers (``CMMs'') that meet certain qualifications
as Alternative PMMs when none of the PMMs want an allocation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ According to ISE, at times, the Exchange is unable to list
new products because existing PMMs are not interested in trading the
options class. At other times, ISE must delist certain products due
to lack of PMM interest. ISE represents that this occurs most
frequently with respect to options on stocks that have pending
corporate actions and options products that are not listed at any
other options exchange. ISE believes that despite the lack of PMM
interest, these products may be of interest to other market making
firms at the Exchange.
    \5\ Only CMMs that own or lease CMM Rights shall be eligible to
be appointed as an Alternative PMM. That is, Electronic Access
Members acting as market makers in the Second Market will not be
eligible to be appointed as Alternative PMMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, if no PMMs or Second Market PMMs (as
applicable) want the allocation, the Alternative PMMs would be offered
the opportunity to serve as PMM in the options class in accordance with
the Exchange's regular allocation procedures. Once appointed to an
options class, the Alternative PMM would have all of the
responsibilities and privileges of a PMM under the ISE Rules with
respect to all appointed options classes.\6\ If an Alternative PMM
ceases trading of an options class, that options class will be
reallocated by the Exchange. An Alternative PMM will not have any
transferable rights in options classes to which it is appointed nor
will it have any PMM voting rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, Alternative PMMs would enjoy privileges that
include, among other things, participation rights and small order
execution preference while accepting responsibilities that include,
among other things, the obligation to provide continuous quotations
in the options class to which the Alternative PMM is appointed, and
the obligation to conduct the opening rotation on a daily basis for
as long as the Alternative PMM is appointed to that options class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires that an exchange
have rules designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, which is
intended to allow the Exchange to allocate more new products and to
facilitate the continued listing of existing products, is consistent
with the Act. The Commission believes that the introduction of
Alternative PMMs on

the Exchange should add liquidity to the market in the options classes
that PMMs on the Exchange decline to seek an allocation, and therefore
should provide trading opportunities that should benefit all market
participants. In addition, the Commission notes that Alternative PMMs
will have all of the responsibilities and all of the privileges of a
PMM under the ISE's rules with respect to all appointed options
classes.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2008-90) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1230 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

NOTICE OF FILING

EPA Registration Division Contact: Mary Waller (PM#21),<PHONE_NUMBER>

Sipcam Agro USA, Inc.

	In 1999 the U.S. EPA received a pesticide petition (PP#9F5066) from
Sipcam Agro USA, Inc., 300 Colonial Center Parkway, #230, Roswell, GA
30076, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Code, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part
180.557 by establishing tolerances for residues of tetraconazole in or
on raw agricultural commodities pertaining to sugarbeets.  The EPA
subsequently acted upon the petition, and published [Fed. Reg. 70, No.
77; 20821] the requisite tolerances under 40 CFR § 180.557 as they
pertained to regional registrations.  At this time the EPA is
eliminating the regional restrictions pertaining to these tolerances in
conjunction with non-regionalized registrations of tetraconazole on
sugarbeets.

Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant and animal metabolism.  In plants and animals, the metabolism
of tetraconazole is adequately understood.  Tetraconazole metabolites
include 1,2,4-triazole, and two conjugates, triazolylalanine and
triazolyl acetic acid, which are common to the triazole derivative
fungicides.  Based on the available metabolism and toxicology data,
parent tetraconazole is the residue of concern in plant and animal
matrices.

	2. Analytical method. In plants and animals, the residue of concern,
parent tetraconazole, can be determined using High Pressure Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC) with a Mass Spectrometer (MS) detector.  The limit
of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.01 ppm for sugarbeet raw and
processed commodities.

	3. Magnitude of the residues. A magnitude of residue study was
conducted at a total of twelve field sites, encompassing all
geographical regions where sugarbeets are grown, to evaluate the
magnitude of the residues of tetraconazole in sugarbeet raw agricultural
commodities following six applications of Eminent 125SL at 0.107 lbs of
active ingredient (ai) per acre, throughout the growing season until 14
days prior to harvest.  Residues of tetraconazole in sugarbeet roots
ranged from non-detectable (<0.010) to 0.09 ppm [HAFT] among thirty-four
samples taken from the twelve field sites. A subset of dissipation
samples taken from one of the field sites demonstrated that
tetraconazole residues were detectable at 0.02 and 0.014 ppm in
sugarbeet roots when the preharvest interval was zero (0) and three (3)
days, respectively, but thereafter were non-detectable (<0.010) as the
preharvest interval ranged from seven (7) to sixty (60) days.

Residues of tetraconazole on sugarbeet tops (leaves) ranged from 1.44 to
4.90 ppm [HAFT] among thirty-four samples taken from the twelve field
sites. A subset of dissipation samples taken from one of the field sites
demonstrated that the magnitude of tetraconazole residues declined in
sugarbeet tops with a calculated half-life of 39 days (R*2 = 0.83) as
the preharvest interval ranged from zero (0) to sixty (60) days.

A second magnitude of residue study was conducted at a thirteenth field
site to evaluate the magnitude of the residue of tetraconazole in
sugarbeet roots and tops following six applications of tetraconazole at
0.107 lbs active ingredient per acre, as compared with three
applications at the same rate, with applications throughout the growing
season until 14 days prior to harvest.  Residues of tetraconazole in the
roots and tops were present in approximately direct proportion with the
number of applications that were made to the crop (in roots 0.04 vs.
0.012 ppm; in tops 1.71 vs. 0.79 ppm, respectively with six vs. three
applications).

A processing study conducted upon bulked sugarbeet roots taken from a
fourteenth field site determined that residues of tetraconazole
concentrated in sugarbeet pulp (dry) by a factor of 2.1, and in
sugarbeet molasses by a factor of 2.8.

Toxicological Profile

The toxicological database for tetraconazole is complete.  The EPA’s
assessments of potential exposure and risks associated with the proposed
tolerances are categorized as follows:

1. Acute toxicity. Acute oral lethal dose (LD)50 = 1,031
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) (toxicity category III); acute dermal LD50 <
2,000 mg/kg (toxicity category III); acute inhalation lethal
concentration (LC)50 = 3.66 mg/liter (toxicity category IV); primary eye
irritation - clear by 72 hours (toxicity category III); primary skin
irritation - slight irritation (toxicity category IV); and dermal
sensitization - negative.

2. Genotoxicity. A battery of mutagenicity studies yielded negative
results in Salmonella typhimurium, cultured Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)
cells, and mouse lymphoma cells. There was no evidence of clastogenicity
in vitro or in vivo and tetraconazole did not induce unscheduled DNA
synthesis in human HeLa cells.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A two-generation
reproduction study was conducted in rats at dietary concentrations of 0,
10, 70 or 490 ppm.  The LOAEL for parental toxicity was 70 ppm,
equivalent to 4.9/5.9 (male/female) mg/kg/day based on increased
mortality in P generation females. The NOAEL was 10 ppm, equivalent to
0.7/0.8 (M/F) mg/kg/day. The LOAEL for off spring toxicity was 490 ppm
(40.6 mg/kg/day from the P generation female intake) based on decreased
litter weight and mean pup weight in litters of all generations before
weaning and increased relative liver weights at weaning in both sexes of
all litters. The NOAEL was 70 ppm (5.9 mg/kg/day). The LOAEL for
reproductive toxicity was 70 ppm, equivalent to 4.9/5.9 (M/F) mg/kg/day
based on increased mean gestation duration in P generation parental
females and related evidence of compound toxicity in the parturition
process.  The NOAEL was 10 ppm (0.7 mg/kg/day for males and 0.8 for
females).

A developmental toxicity study was conducted using rats gavaged with
doses of 0, 5, 22.5, and 100 mg/kg/day from days 2 through 15 of
gestation. The maternal toxicity LOAEL wa100 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and increased liver and
kidney weights. The maternal toxicity NOAEL was 22.5 mg/kg/day.
Developmental toxicity was noted at 100 mg/kg/day and consisted of an
increased incidence of small fetuses, and supernumerary ribs. The LOAEL
and NOAEL for developmental toxicity were 100 and 22.5 mg/kg/day,
respectively.

A developmental toxicity study was conducted using rabbits gavaged with
doses of 0, 7.5, 15, or 30 mg/kg/day.  The maternal toxicity NOAEL was
13 mg/kg/day, and LOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day, based upon decreased body
weight gain.  The developmental toxicity NOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day and the
LOAEL was not established.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Ninety-day feeding studies were conducted in
rats and mice.  The rat study was conduced at dietary concentrations of
0, 10, 60, or 360 ppm.  The NOAEL was 4.1/5.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The
LOAEL was 23.9/28.7 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based on single liver cell
degeneration in males, and increased SGPT and SGOT, decreased BUN
levels, increased absolute and relative liver weights and presence of
hepatocellular single cell necrosis in females.  The mouse study was
conducted at dietary concentrations of 0, 5, 25, 125, or 625 ppm.  The
NOAEL was 4 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 16/20 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based
on single liver cell degeneration in males, and increased SGPT and SGOT,
decreased BUN levels, increased absolute and relative liver weights and
presence of hepatocellular single cell necrosis in females.

5. Chronic toxicity. A two year combined chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity study was conducted in rats at dietary
concentrations of 0, 10, 80, 640 or 1280 ppm.  The NOAEL was 3.4/4.4
(M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 27.7/39.4 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based upon
histopathology of the bone (osseous hypertrophy of the cranium/parietal
bone), pale and thickened incisors, and decreased absolute and relative
adrenal and pituitary weights in males; decreased body weight (at
terminal sacrifice) in females.  No treatment-related increases in tumor
incidence were observed.

A 52-week chronic toxicity study was conducted in dogs at dietary
concentrations of 0, 22.5, 90 or 360 ppm.  The NOAEL was 0.73/0.82 (M/F)
mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 27.7/39.4 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based upon
increased absolute and relative kidney weights and histopathological
changes in the male kidney.

6. Carcinogenicity.  An 80 week mouse oncogenicity study was conducted
at dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 90, 800, or 1250 ppm.  The NOAEL was
1.4/1.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 12/14.5 (M/F) mg/kg/day, based
upon increased liver weights and hepatocellular vacuolation in both
sexes and increased kidney weights in males.  Treatment-related
increased incidences of combined benign and malignant liver tumors in
both sexes were observed.

7. Animal metabolism. The nature of tetraconazole residues is adequately
understood.  Tetraconazole is extensively metabolized very quickly and
eliminated from the body by fecal and urinary routes.

8. Metabolite toxicology.  1,2-4-Triazole is the major metabolite
identified in urine and feces with minor amounts of triazole acid and
alcohol.  The most conservative toxicology endpoint for 1,2,4-triazole
is 15 mg/kg/day, based on body weight decreases in male rats in the
reproduction study.

9. Endocrine disruption. Tetraconazole did not affect endocrine organs
or tissues, nor were there any indications of effects on fetal
development in either rats or rabbits, or on reproductive performance in
rats.  Therefore, at doses likely to be encountered, tetraconazole in
not likely to be an endocrine disruptor.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.  Using 100% crop treated scenarios and existing
sugar beet, milk, cattle, horse, goat, and sheep tolerances, plus the
pending peanut, pecan, soybean and poultry tolerances, acute dietary
exposure to tetraconazole from food occupies only 0.5% of the aPAD
(0.225 mg/kg at UF = 100) for females 13 to 49 years old, the only
population subgroup for which an acute toxicity endpoint was determined.
 Using the same exposure assumptions, chronic dietary exposure from food
to tetraconazole occupies 3.9% and 11.1% of the cPAD (0.0073 mg/kg/day
at UF = 100) for the U.S. population and the most sensitive
subpopulation, non-nursing infants, respectively.  The estimated
aggregate oncogenic risk from dietary exposure from all existing and
proposed uses is 0.21 x 10-6, a value that falls within the Agency's
acceptable oncogenic risk standard of <1 x 10-6.

	i. Food. The cRfD and aRfD values of 0.0073 mg/kg bw and 0.225 mg/kg
bw, respectively, were used to assess risk from dietary exposure.  Tier
1 dietary risk assessments indicate that the highest chronic and acute
exposures never exceed 11.1% and 0.5% (at the 99.9th percentile of
exposure) for the cRfD and aRfD, respectively.

	ii. Drinking water. The standard EPA Mississippi soybean PRZM/EXAMS
modeling scenario with index reservoir (IR) was used to conservatively
estimate concentrations of tetraconazole in drinking water resulting
from a proposed use on soybeans, which also applies to the presently
proposed use on peanuts.  The drinking water estimated concentrations
(DWECs) from the Mississippi soybean scenario model were 2.19 ppb
(acute), 0.578 ppb (chronic) and 0.441ppb (30 year lifetime average).
These are 6 to 28 times greater than the highest level of tetraconazole
“detected” in Minnesota surface water, which was 0.075 ppb (1/2
limit of quantitation).  Thus, the Mississippi DWECs were used to assess
dietary risks from exposure to drinking water for uses on soybeans and
peanuts.  The DWECs are lower than the lowest drinking water level of
comparison (DWLOC) values of 6,720 ppb (acute), 69 to 249 ppb (chronic),
and 1.516 ppb (cancer).  When DWLOC values are not exceed by DWEC values
it can be concluded that dietary risks from exposure to drinking water
are acceptable.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Tetraconazole is currently not registered or
proposed for use on any residential non-food site.  Therefore,
residential exposure to tetraconazole residues would be through dietary
exposure only.

D. Cumulative Effects

	EPA has not determined that a common mechanism of toxicity pertains to
tetraconazole as compared with any other substance.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on the exposure assumptions described above
and on the completeness of the toxicology database, it can be concluded
that total aggregate exposure from food and water to the U.S. population
and all evaluated population subgroups from tetraconazole exposure from
all proposed uses will be below 100% of the RfDs.  EPA generally has no
concerns for estimated exposures below 100% of the RfD, since the RfD
represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure will not
pose an appreciable risk to human health.  Thus it can be concluded that
there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to tetraconazole residues for registered and proposed uses,
including the presently proposed use on peanuts.

	2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of tetraconazole, the
data from developmental toxicity studies in both the rat and rabbit and
a two generation reproduction study in rats have been considered.  These
toxicity studies indicate the offspring are not more sensitive and all
developmental and reproductive effects were secondary to maternal
toxicity. Thus infants and children are protected, and an additional
uncertainty factor pertaining to infants and children is not warranted.

F. International Tolerances

Maximum residue levels (MRL) have been established for tetraconazole in
the following countries (in ppm).

Belgium: sugar beet root, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 2.0.

France: apple, 0.2; barley grain, 0.02; grape, 0.2; wine, 0.01; sugar
beet root, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.02.

Italy: apple, 0.5; artichoke, 0.2; barley grain, 0.1; courgette, 0.2;
cucumber, 0.2; grape, 0.5; melon, 0.05; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.2; pepper,
0.2; tomato, 0.2, watermelon, 0.05; wheat grain, 0.05

Portugal: apple, 0.3; grape, 0.2; melon, 0.1; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.3;
strawberry, 0.2; sugar beet root, 0.05.

Spain: apple, 0.2; artichoke, 0.05; cucurbit fruit & edible peel, 0.2;
nectarine, 0.2; peach, 0.2; pear, 0.2; sugar beet leaves, 0.3; sugar
beet root; 0.05; tomato, 0.1.

United Kingdom: barley grain, 0.2; barley straw, 10; oat grain, 0.1; oat
straw, 2; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 5.

Czech Republic: apple, 0.5; grape, 0.05

Hungary: apple, 0.2; grape, 0.5; sugar beet root & leaves, 0.5; sugar
beet root, 0.1; wheat grain, 0.05; wheat straw, 3.

Poland: apple, 0.5; cereal grain, 0.05; cereal straw, 3; cucumber edible
peel, 0.2.

Japan: wheat, 0.05; barley; 0.2 other cereal grain, 0.1; sugar beet,
0.5; artichoke, 0.2; tomato, 1; cucumber, 0.5; pumpkin (including
squash), 1; oriental cucurbitaceous vegetables, 0.2; apple, 0.5,
Japanese pear, 0.5, pear, 0.5 quince, 0.5 peach, 0.3, nectarine, 0.2;
apricot, 0.2; Japanese plum (including prune); 0.2; cherry, 0.2;
strawberry, 2; watermelon, 0.2, melon, 0.2; makuwauri, 0.2; grape, 0.5;
tea, 20.

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  6


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79242-79243]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65970; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change Expanding the Scope of Potential ``Users'' of Its
Co-Location Services To Include Any Market Participant that Requests to
Receive Co-Location Services Directly From the Exchange and Amending
Its Fee Schedule To Establish a Fee for Users That Host Their Customers
at the Exchange's Data Center

 December 15, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On October 14, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to expand the scope of potential ``Users'' of its
co-location services, and to amend its Fee Schedule. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 1,
2011.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65625 (October 26,
2011), 76 FR 67522 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey from
which it provides co-location services to Users.\4\ For purposes of its
co-location services, the term ``User'' currently includes any ETP
Holder or Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to
the NYSE Arca Marketplace pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29 (see
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(yy)). The Exchange proposed to expand the
scope of potential Users of its co-location services to include any
market participant that requests to receive co-location services
directly from the Exchange.\5\ Under the proposed rule change, Users
could therefore include ETP Holders, Sponsored Participants, non-ETP
Holder broker-dealers and vendors.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63275 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 70048.
    \5\ As stated by the Exchange, Users must agree to, and be
capable of satisfying, any applicable co-location fees,
requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by
the Exchange. See Notice, 76 FR at 67522.
    \6\ Id. The Exchange anticipated that the potential additional
Users would provide, for example, hosting, service bureau, technical
support, risk management, order routing and market data delivery
services to their customers while the User is co-located in the
Exchange's data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposed to amend its Price List to establish a
fee applicable to Users that provide hosting services to their
customers (``Hosted Users'') at the Exchange's data center.\7\
``Hosting'' would be a service offered by a User to a Hosted User and
could include, for example, a User supporting its Hosted User's
technology, whether hardware or software, through the User's co-
location space. Specifically, the Exchange proposed to charge each User
a fee of $500.00 per month for each Hosted User that the User hosts in
the Exchange's data center. Users would independently set fees for
their Hosted Users and the Exchange would not receive a share of any
such fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and issuers and other persons using its facilities, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange noted that the expansion of the scope of potential
Users of the Exchange's co-location services increases access to the
Exchange's co-location facilities and that the co-location services
would be offered to these additional Users in a

manner that is not unfairly discriminatory.\11\ The Commission believes
that this expansion of the scope of potential Users is consistent with
the Exchange Act and should increase access to the Exchange co-location
facilities by allowing additional categories of market participants to
access the Exchange's co-location services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 76 FR at 67523.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the proposed hosting fee, the Exchange represented that
it will be applied uniformly and will not unfairly discriminate between
Users of co-location services, as the hosting fee will be applicable to
all interested Users that provide hosting services.\12\ The Exchange
also represented that the hosting fee is reasonable because it is
designed to defray expenses incurred or resources expended by the
Exchange.\13\ In light of the Exchange's representations, the
Commission believes that the hosting fee is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2011-74) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32664 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 104)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30822-30823]
[DOCID:fr29my08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0447; Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-8]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Eek, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Eek, AK.
Two Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and a textual
Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) are being developed for the Eek
Airport at Eek, AK. Adoption of this proposal would result in
establishing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the
surface at the Eek Airport, Eek, AK.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2008-0447/Airspace Docket
No. 08-AAL-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0447/
Airspace Docket No. 08-AAL-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs)

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part 71), which would establish Class E airspace at
the Eek Airport, in Eek, AK. The intended effect of this proposal is to
create Class E airspace upward from 700 ft. above the surface to
contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Eek Airport,
Eek, AK.
    The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance
Branch has developed two SIAPs and one textual ODP for the Eek Airport.
The new SIAPs are (1) the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 17, Original (Orig) and (2) the RNAV (GPS)
RWY 35, Orig. Textual ODPs are unnamed and are published in the front
of the U.S. Terminal Procedures for Alaska. Class E controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface in the Eek Airport area
would be created by this action. The proposed airspace is sufficient in
size to contain aircraft executing the instrument procedures at the Eek
Airport, Eek, AK.
    The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200
foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to create Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain
aircraft executing instrument procedures at the Eek Airport, AK, and
represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use
the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Eek, AK [New]

Eek, Eek Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]13[min]07[sec] N., long. 162[deg]01[min]25[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of the Eek Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on May 16, 2008.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E8-11968 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P