Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises many significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks perhaps a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but, as a mother and a member of the work force, my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but compiling a concise, scientifically accurate, and intelligent response to such an important issue takes time. I know that the FDA took many years to come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our one and only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback on this issue.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes.  I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I know that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16000-16001]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-85-000]

Bison Pipeline LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization
and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on March 3, 2023, Bison Pipeline LLC (Bison), 700
Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above
referenced docket, a prior notice pursuant to Sections 157.205,
157.210, and 157.216(b)(2)(iii) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act and the blanket
certificate issued by the Commission in Docket No. CP09-161-000,\1\
seeking authorization to modify the operation of its natural gas
pipeline mainline system to reduce the Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure (MAOP) and to abandon the associated system design capacity
located in Campbell County, Wyoming and Morton County, North Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Bison Pipeline LLC., 131 FERC ] 61,013 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Bison seeks authorization to reduce, from 1,440
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 1,296 psig, the MAOP of its
entire natural gas pipeline mainline system from the Buffalo Meter
Station, located in Campbell County, Wyoming, to the Kurtz Meter
Station, located in Morton County, North Dakota, in compliance with
U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration's regulations to ensure continued system
integrity and safe operations. Additionally, Bison requests
authorization to abandon approximately 30.5 million cubic feet per day
of associated system design capacity, all as more fully set forth in
the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    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 the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Bison Pipeline LLC,
700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002, by phone at
(832) 320-477; or by email to [email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 8, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is May 8, 2023. A protest may also serve as
a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks to
be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is May 8, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before May 8, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not serve
to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you
must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-85-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the

Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's
website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New
eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing.'' The Commission's eFiling
staff are available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission. Your submission
must reference the Project docket number CP23-85-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: David A.
Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Bison Pipeline LLC, 700
Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002, by phone at (832)
320-477; or by email to [email protected]. Any subsequent
submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all
other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be
downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: March 9, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05286 Filed 3-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60981]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL12-42-000, EL12-42-001; EL12-43-000, EL12-43-001

TGP Granada, LLC and Roosevelt Wind Ranch, LLC v. Public Service
Company of New Mexico, Tortoise Capital Resources Corp.; TGP Granada,
LLC and Roosevelt Wind Ranch, LLC; Notice Establishing Deadline for
Comments

    On September 5, 2012, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)
filed a response to the Commission's July 5 Order,\1\ regarding the
provision of long-term transmission service over capacity on the
Eastern Interconnection Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ TGP Granada, LLC v. Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 140 FERC ]
61,005 (2012) (July 5 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in the above proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on October 9, 2012. Protests may be considered, but intervention
is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24600 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71045-71046]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0599]

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Report of Scientific
and Medical Literature and Information on Non-Standardized Allergenic
Extracts in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergic Disease; Extension
of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to April
25, 2012, the comment period for the notice on its report of scientific
and medical literature and information concerning the use of non-
standardized allergenic extracts in the diagnosis and treatment of
allergic disease that appeared in the Federal Register of September 26,
2011 (76 FR 59407). In the notice, FDA requested comments from public
and private stakeholders on

the report it provided in a data file entitled ``Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research Report of Scientific and Medical Literature and
Information on Non-Standardized Allergenic Extracts in the Diagnosis
and Treatment of Allergic Disease.'' The Agency is taking this action
in response to input it received from the Allergenic Products Advisory
Committee (APAC) at a meeting held on October 25, 2011, to allow
interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the report by
April 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the report to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The data file may also be obtained by mail by
calling CBER at 1-(800) 835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the data
file document.
    Submit electronic comments on the report to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the report to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Levine, Jr., Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59407), FDA
published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request comments on
its report of scientific and medical literature and information
concerning the use of non-standardized allergenic extracts in the
diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease. Comments on the report
will allow FDA to fully evaluate the information contained in the
report.
    The Agency received comments in the APAC meeting held on October
25, 2011, that FDA should consider extending the comment period for the
notice for several months. Members of the APAC expressed concern that
the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to
develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the notice on FDA's
report of scientific and medical literature and information concerning
the use of non-standardized allergenic extracts in the diagnosis and
treatment of allergic disease. Materials related to the report were
discussed at this meeting and are available at: http:// www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/AllergenicProductsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm247212.htm. When it is completed, a transcript of the meeting will
also be available at this Web page.
    FDA has considered the comments from the APAC meeting and is
extending the comment period for the notice until April 25, 2012. The
Agency believes that an extension until April 25, 2012, allows adequate
time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly
delaying the evaluation of these important issues.
    FDA welcomes comments regarding its report of scientific and
medical literature and information concerning the use of non-
standardized allergenic extracts in the diagnosis and treatment of
allergic disease. In particular, FDA is interested in additional data
regarding the use of these extracts that had been previously published
in the medical or scientific literature. Unpublished data should
include the following information, if available: Date(s) of collection;
extract(s) studied and method of preparation; dose and route of
administration; patient demography; and additional clinical information
(including confirmatory testing, such as challenges or serum specific
IgE determinations).

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-29483 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47726-47729]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0077; Notice 2]

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Notice of petition denial.

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

SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper Tire) has determined that
certain Cooper brand tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Cooper Tire filed a noncompliance report dated May 4,
2018, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 21, 2018, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces the denial of Cooper
Tire's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Cooper Tire has determined that certain Cooper brand tires do not
fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR part 571.139). Cooper Tire
filed a noncompliance report dated May 4, 2018, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on May 21, 2018, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Cooper Tire's petition was published with a
30-day public comment period, on December 6, 2018, in the Federal
Register (83 FR 62949). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2018-0077.''

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 327 Evolution H/T size 245/70R16 tubeless radial
tires, manufactured between June 4, 2017, and June 10, 2017, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Cooper Tire explains that the noncompliance is that the subject
tires were molded with an incorrectly ordered serial week and year on
the outboard sidewall. This date is required by paragraph S5.5.1(b) of
FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the subject tires were manufactured with
serial week ``1723'' when they should have been manufactured with
serial week ``2317.''

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition:
     For tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, each
tire must be

labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574
on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.
     Except for retreaded tires, if a tire does not have an
intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the tire
identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and
with either the tire identification number or a partial tire
identification number, containing all characters in the tire
identification number except for the date code and, at the discretion
of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other sidewall.

V. Summary of Petition

    Cooper Tire described the subject noncompliance and contended that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
    In support of its petition, Cooper Tire submitted the following:
    1. While the 327 tires in the subject population contain an
incorrectly ordered week and year for the fourth grouping of Tire
Identification Number's (TIN), they are in all other respects properly
labeled and meet all performance requirements under the FMVSSs. The
serial week of manufacture has no bearing on the performance or
operation of a tire and does not create a safety concern to either the
operator of the vehicle on which the tires are mounted, or the safety
of personnel in the tire repair, retread, and recycling industry.
    2. Tire registration and traceability will not be interrupted.
Cooper Tire's internally controlled online registration system has been
modified to be able to accept the incorrectly ordered 1723 date code.
Any tires registered with that date code and TIN will be identified
properly as having been manufactured in the 23rd week of 2017. This
will ensure that Cooper Tire is able to identify these tires in the
event they must be recalled. If a recall is necessary, Cooper Tire will
explain the date issue in any recall notice.
    3. Cooper Tire can also confirm that it will not use the same full
TIN in year 2023. Cooper Tire uses the third grouping of numbers within
the TIN to identify the SKU or make of the tire, as is permitted at the
option of the manufacturer under the regulations. See 49 CFR
574.5(g)(3). In this case, lJ9 is the third grouping, which indicates
that this tire is a Cooper Evolution H/T. While Cooper Tire has not yet
set its year 2023 production schedule, if Cooper Evolution H/T tires
are made in year 2023, Cooper Tire will assign another unique
identifier so that the tires made in year 2017 will be distinguishable
from the tires made in year 2023. This will eliminate the potential for
SKUs produced in year 2017 to be confused with those produced in year
2023 and will allow for Cooper Tire to readily identify the 327 tires
that are the subject of this petition. However, this will not be
obvious to any consumer. Therefore, there is a risk a consumer could
buy an aged tire assuming it is a new tire.
    4. NHTSA has granted a number of previous inconsequentiality
petitions relating to mislabeled TINs, provided that the mislabeling
does not affect the manufacturer's ability to identify the tires. ``The
purpose of the date code is to identify a tire so that, if necessary,
the appropriate action can be taken in the interest of public safety
such as a safety recall notice.'' See Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.;
Grant of Application, 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 1999); and Cooper Tire &
Rubber Company, Grant of Application, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 2003).
Accordingly, NHTSA has explained in multiple instances that ``[t]he
agency believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor
vehicle safety, in this case, is the effect of the noncompliance on the
ability of the tire manufacturer to identify the tires in the event of
a recall.'' Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Grant of Application, 66 FR
45076 (August 27, 2001). As a result, NHTSA has granted petitions and
found that TIN noncompliance is inconsequential to safety in cases
where the TIN is out of sequence or mislabeled, including where the
week and/or year of manufacture is mislabeled and even where the date
code is missing altogether. See, e.g., Bridgestone Firestone North
America Tire, LLC, Grant of Petition, 71 FR 4396 (January 26, 2006)
(granting petition where date code was missing because manufacturer
could still identify and recall the tires); Cooper Tire & Rubber
Company, Grant of Application, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 2003) (granting
petition where tires were labeled with wrong plant code, because ``the
tires have a unique DOT identification''); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
Grant of Application, 66 FR 45076 (Aug. 27, 2001) (granting petition
where the date code was labeled incorrectly, because ``the information
included on the tire identification label and the manufacturer's tire
production records is sufficient to ensure that these tires can be
identified in the event of a recall''); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.;
Grant of Application, 64 FR 29080 (May 28, 1999) (granting petition
where the wrong year was marked in the date code on the tires); Cooper
Tire & Rubber Company; Grant of Application, 63 FR 29059 (May 27, 1998)
(granting petition where the date code was missing where tires had a
unique TIN for recall purposes); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.; Grant of
Application, 60 FR 57617 (November 16, 1995) (granting petition where
the date code was out of sequence); Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company;
Grant of Petition, 59 FR 64232 (December 13, 1994) (granting petition
where week and year were mislabeled on tires). As with other cases in
which NHTSA has granted petitions for a determination of
inconsequential noncompliance, Cooper Tire will be able to identify the
tires that are the subject of this petition in the event of a recall.
As described above, these tires will have a unique DOT identifier that
will allow for Cooper Tire to identify and recall them in the event
that any issues arise in the future.
    5. Cooper Tire has taken steps over the last two years to add
additional checks in its processes to prevent TIN errors. For example,
Cooper Tire has implemented software that allows for a specific plant
to choose only its plant code from a drop-down menu when engraving that
portion of the TIN. Date codes are updated on a weekly basis and often
produced in advance of the serial week. The serial week and year are
manually entered into the system and then engraved on a plug for use.
Cooper Tire is working to prevent future issues and evaluating the
possibility of additional technology which will restrict the selection
of date codes to a contained period of time. Cooper Tire is also
reviewing its inspection processes to ensure that errors of this sort
are identified earlier in the process.
    Cooper Tire concluded that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification and a remedy for
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118-20, should be
granted. Lastly, Cooper Tire informed the Agency that there are no
warranty adjustments, personal injury claims, or property damage claims
related to the subject noncompliance.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect. In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any

safety issues, nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in
the future.'' ``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and
swift reaction have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that
good luck will continue to work.''
    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition. Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.
    NHTSA has reviewed Cooper Tire's statements on which it bases its
belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. In this case, the subject tires were molded with an incorrectly
ordered date code on the outboard sidewall.
    NHTSA's decision considered the following arguments:
    1. Markings--On NHTSA's website, the guidance for replacing a tire
states the following: ``As tires age, they are more prone to failure.
Some vehicle and tire manufacturers recommend replacing tires that are
six to 10 years old regardless of treadwear.'' \1\ In the case of the
subject tires, the future erroneous date code ``1723'' may mislead a
consumer about the age of the tire during its usage and lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/tires (``Should I replace my
tires?'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The subject tires labeled with the incorrect date code ``1723''
instead of the correct date code ``2317'' may confuse consumers because
it means the tires were made in the 17th week of year 2023. After the
17th week of year 2023, consumers may believe the date code is correct.
An incorrect date code may affect a consumer's behavior, if the
consumer believes that the tires are new instead of six years old.
    In addition, tire dealers may store tires for multiple years before
selling them. A customer who purchases tires with this type of labeling
error may incorrectly believe the tire is not as old as it is and may
not replace the tire, based on the manufacturer's recommendation for
replacing tires due to age. For example, Cooper Tire recommends that
all tires be replaced if 10 or more years has passed since the date of
manufacture.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://us.coopertire.com/safety/replacement-guide/tire-service-life (last accessed May 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Performance--Cooper Tire stated that the subject tires, in all
other respects, are properly labeled and meet all performance
requirements. Cooper Tire also stated that the date code has no bearing
on the performance or operation of the tires. Cooper Tire further
argued that the subject noncompliance does not pose a safety concern to
either the operator, the vehicle on which the tires are mounted, or the
safety of personnel in the tire repair, retread, and recycling
industry. NHTSA does not find the arguments persuasive. The fact that a
new tire meets all other minimum performance requirements fails to
limit the potential risk from using a tire beyond the manufacturer's
recommended maximum service life; thus, this labeling issue has
potential performance implications.
    3. Other petitions--In its petition, Cooper Tire cited a number of
inconsequentiality petitions relating to TINs that the Agency
previously granted. The Agency believes the facts of the petitions
cited are sufficiently different and do not support granting the
subject petition. The decision notice published at 64 FR 29080 (May 28,
1999) concerned a tire with an incorrectly labeled date code (one year
past the actual date of production instead of six years as in the
subject tires). The consequence of a consumer relying on the incorrect
date was determined to be inconsequential under those circumstances.
    The decision notice published at 71 FR 4396 (Jan 26, 2006),
concerned a missing date code. It is distinguished from the subject
case because it does not point to a future production date, and
therefore, does not mislead consumers by providing an incorrect date
six years into the future. In the decision notice published at 60 FR
57617 (Nov 16, 1995) the date code was correct but misplaced. In the
Bridgestone/Firestone case, 66 FR 45076 (August 27, 2001), the date
code related to only one year of future production in the mislabeling.
In the prior Cooper Tire case, 68 FR 16115 (April 2, 2003), the
noncompliance was irrelevant as it referred to the mislabeling of the
plant code and not the date code, which is the concern in the subject
tires. The other prior Cooper Tire case cited, 63 FR 29059 (May 27,
1998), is also irrelevant, as it relates to mislabeling of the plant
code and a missing date code. In that Cooper Tire case, the missing
date code did not mislead consumers about the age of the tire.
    The Agency considers the Uniroyal Goodrich petition, 59 FR 1994
(December 13, 1994), relevant to the petition being considered because
the mislabeling of the date code is similar to the subject Cooper Tire
noncompliance. However, the Uniroyal Goodrich petition was granted in
1994. Since then, the Agency's understanding of the negative safety
consequences of tire aging has evolved. NHTSA now recommends that tires
be replaced, regardless of their service conditions or useful tread
life, based on the manufacturer's recommended maximum service life.
NHTSA finds that such a mislabeling is not inconsequential to safety
when the mislabeling has the potential to allow a tire to remain in
service significantly beyond the manufacturer's recommended maximum
service life by six years.
    4. Other considerations--The Agency recognizes that Cooper Tire has
taken measures to allow customers to register their tires with an
incorrectly ordered date code. NHTSA agrees that this will help enable
Cooper Tire to identify consumers who have purchased and registered the
affected tires. However, this does not, in NHTSA's view, negate the
safety risk caused by the incorrect date code as tires may not be
registered or may change hands subsequent to registration.
    5. Claims--While Cooper Tire noted that there are no claims for
property damage or crashes reported for the subject tires, this is not
persuasive as the noncompliance likely only poses risk in the future.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Cooper Tire has
not met its burden of persuasion of establishing that the subject FMVSS
No. 139 noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. The mislabeled date code present in this case presents
an obvious risk that the tires may be used or perhaps sold well after
they have aged to the point where they cannot be safely used.
Accordingly, Cooper Tire's petition is hereby denied. Cooper Tire is
obligated to provide notification of, and a free remedy for, the
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 through 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120: Delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-18354 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


November 8, 2010

The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 1101)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, D.C.  20460

Re: Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of the Final Rule: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I am writing in support of the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association’s (NRECA) October 19, 2020, Petition for Reconsideration
of portions of the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines promulgated on
August 20, 2010, (75 Fed. Reg. 51,570).

Allamakee-Clayton Electric Cooperative (ACEC) is a member-owned electric
distribution cooperative located in northeast Iowa.  We serve
approximately 9748 member-consumers and are about 95% rural residential
or agricultural farm operations in consumer makeup.  Farms are typically
grain and/or livestock based operations, including a significant dairy
and swine industry which is very dependent on affordable and reliable
electric service.

We have only recently become aware of the proposed RICE NESHAP rules and
the potential impact of these rules on our cooperative member-consumers.
 As a distribution cooperative without our own generation facilities, we
have had no practical reason to track and review the many and varied
rulemaking activities under the Clean Air Act.  Lacking any outreach
from the EPA, we have been taken off-guard by the proposed rules and the
potential adverse impact that such changes would have on what has been
heretofore, a very successful and practical peak shaving program.

NRECA’s petition addresses restrictions contained in the final rule
that prohibit the use of small emergency generating units for peak
shaving programs. ACEC has offered a variety of load management programs
for many years, including a Peak Alert Program which allows
member-consumers to utilize their emergency generators for peak shaving
purposes.  Currently we have 20 such accounts which help the cooperative
to realize approximate 1655 kW in demand reduction during times of
system peak demand.  While the resultant savings are beneficial to the
cooperative membership as a whole, the real measure of success is with
the member-owners of the generating units.  These units have largely
been installed as emergency backup generators for livestock operations.
Without these critical units, the livestock producers could suffer large
financial loss due to livestock mortality during power outages.  By
including these generating units in our Peak Alert Program, the owners
have realized additional financial benefits from the generating units
and are better able to justify the costs of what is in reality, a
necessity for the financial safeguarding of their farm operations.

ACEC’s peak shaving programs typically involve minimal hours of
operation, and would not generally add to the 100 annual hours of
operation allowed under the rules.  Continuing to allow use of
member-owned generators for peak shaving programs would not, therefore,
cause any significant additional public health risks or environmental
harm.  Elimination of this program would, however, require procurement
of additional central station generation capacity as well as possible
additional transmission and distribution line capacity in order to serve
the increased demand.

In light of the minimal adverse environmental effects and the offsetting
benefits of continuing to allow use of small emergency generating units
for peak shaving programs, ACEC is requesting that the EPA reconsider
the provisions of the final RICE NESHAP rules that would otherwise
restrict the operation of these units for peak shaving and demand
reduction programs.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional
information.  Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul D Foxwell

Executive Vice President/General Manager

cc: 	Robert Wayland

	Melanie King

	Kevin Bromberg, SBA


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22838-22840]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09293]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71971; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule

April 18, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 10, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov).

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 Exchange 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. On April 10,
2014, the Exchange begins trading options on the CBOE Short-Term
Volatility Index (``VXST''). VXST is calculated in the same manner as
the CBOE Volatility Index (``VIX''); the substantive differences
between VXST and VIX are related to the fact that VXST is on a shorter
timeframe (VXST's implied volatility period is nine days while VIX's is
thirty, and VXST options expire weekly while VIX options expire
monthly).\3\ Due to the similarities between VXST and VIX, the Exchange
proposes to apply the same fees structure to VXST as is currently
applied to VIX. As such, the Exchange proposes to apply to VXST the
same fees, fee programs, and fee exceptions that apply to VIX (with two
exceptions). Wherever VIX is mentioned in the Fees Schedule, the
Exchange proposes to add VXST (aside from the two exceptions). The two
exceptions are that the Exchange assesses a monthly VIX Tier
Appointment fee of $2,000 to any Market-Maker Trading Permit Holder
that either (a) has a VIX Tier Appointment at any time during a
calendar month and trades at least 100 VIX options contracts
electronically while that appointment is active; or (b) trades at least
1,000 VIX options contracts in open outcry during a calendar month.\4\
The Exchange also assesses a monthly Floor Broker VIX Surcharge of
$2,000 per month to any Floor Broker Trading Permit Holder that
executes more than 20,000 VIX contracts during the month.\5\ The
Exchange does not propose to assess these fees in regards to VXST. The
Exchange has expended significant resources in developing VXST and
believes that not assessing these fees in regards to VXST will
encourage trading in VXST.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more information about VXST and the differences between
VXST options and VIX options, see Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71764 (March 21, 2014), 79 FR 17212 (March 27, 2014) (SR-CBOE-
2014-003).
    \4\ See the Exchange Fees Schedule's listing of the VIX Tier
Appointment fee for more information.
    \5\ See the Exchange Fees Schedule's listing of the Floor Broker
VIX Surcharge for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a VIX settlement day, the Exchange waives the Hybrid 3.0
Execution Surcharge for orders in SPX options in the SPX electronic
book that are executed during opening rotation on the final settlement
date of VIX options and futures. This is because the only way to
participate in the settlement process is electronically; there is no
open outcry alternative. Therefore, the Exchange does not want to
assess a surcharge for the only possible method of participation in the
VIX settlement process. VXST, because it expires weekly instead of
monthly, uses SPXW options to determine the 9-day VXST settlement value
except for the one week a month for which there are not expiring SPXW
options. That week is the standard third-Friday expiration, and for
that week, VXST uses SPX options to determine the 9-day VXST settlement
value.
    Therefore, similar to the manner described above, in which the
Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge for orders in SPX options in the SPX
electronic book that are executed during opening rotation on the final
settlement date of VIX options and futures is waived on VIX settlement
day, the Exchange proposes to waive the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge
for orders in SPX options in the SPX electronic book that are executed
during opening rotation on the final settlement date of VXST options
and futures in which SPX options are being used to determine the final
settlement value. This concept also applies, in relation to VXST, to
the Customer Priority Surcharge for SPXW. The Exchange proposes to
waive the SPXW Customer Priority Surcharge for orders in SPXW options
in the SPXW electronic book that are executed during opening rotation
on the final settlement date of VXST options and futures in which SPXW
options are being used to determine the final settlement value. The
Exchange does not want to assess a surcharge for the only possible
method of participation in the VXST settlement process. The Exchange
proposes to add these exceptions to those listed in footnotes 21 and 31
of the Fees Schedule.
    The Exchange always strives for clarity in its rules and Fees
Schedule, so that market participants may best understand how rules and
fees apply. As such, the Exchange proposes to clarify its Fees
Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to move the listing of its
Continuing Education and Qualification Examination Waiver Fee into the
Web CRD\SM\ section, as these fees are actually fees that are collected
and retained by FINRA via the Web CRD\SM\ registration system (like the
other Web CRD\SM\ fees listed on the Fees Schedule). This is not a
substantive fee change.

    Next, the Exchange proposes to delete the listing of the CBSX \6\
Trading Permit fee from the CBOE Fees Schedule. For one thing, the Fees
Schedule does not list a fee for this type of Trading Permit (the
listing says ``No Access Fee''), so it is unnecessary to list the CBSX
Trading Permit. Moreover, CBSX has its own Fees Schedule that lists
access fees, and therefore any future fee that would be assessed for a
CBSX Trading Permit could be listed on the CBSX Fees Schedule. Finally,
CBSX intends to cease market operations on April 30, 2014,\7\ which
further reduces any rationale for listing the CBSX Trading Permit on
the CBOE Fees Schedule. This is not a substantive fee change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``CBSX'' stands for CBOE Stock Exchange.
    \7\ See CBOE/CBSX Regulatory Circular RG14-053 (April 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to remove all fees associated with In-
House Pagers from its Fees Schedule.\8\ The Exchange no longer provides
these services (In-House Pagers) and therefore no longer assesses the
fees associated with such services. This is not a substantive fee
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, the CBOE Fees Schedule lists fees for the
Purchase, Purchase with Trade-in of Old System Pager, Annual
Maintenance, and Abusive Damage Repair of pagers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes, in footnote 6 of its Fees Schedule, to
move the listing of XEO to after the listing of OEX in order to have
VIX, VXST and VOLATILITY INDEXES together in order (due to their
relation). This is not a substantive fee change.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive change to
achieve continuity in its Fees Schedule. VIX is a VOLATILITY INDEX, and
most references to VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES in the Fees Schedule read
``VIX and VOLATILITY INDEXES''. However, in a few places, only
``VOLATILITY INDEXES'' are listed, and such listings implicitly include
VIX (unless VIX is explicitly excepted out). As such, the Exchange
proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to read ``VIX and VOLATILITY
INDEXES'' in all places that VIX is currently only implicitly included
in the listing of VOLATILITY INDEXES (and, following this proposed rule
change, VXST will now also be listed explicitly in these places) in
order to achieve continuity in the Fees Schedule and eliminate
confusion. This way, in the few places where VIX (and now, VXST) is
subject to different fees than the other VOLATILITY INDEXES, it will be
more clear. This is not a substantive fee change.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make a clarifying change to the
Notes section regarding the Hybrid Agency Liaison (``HAL'') Step-Up
Rebate. Currently, the Notes section states: ``The Exchange shall
rebate to a market-maker against transaction fees generated from a
transaction on the HAL system in a penny pilot class, provided that at
least 70% of the market-maker's quotes in that class (excluding mini-
options and quotes in LEAPS series) in the prior calendar month were on
one side of the NBBO.'' The exclusion language in the parenthetical
means that the Exchange does not rebate against fees for mini-options
transactions on the HAL system in a penny pilot class, and does not
include mini-options quotes or quotes in LEAPS series towards the 70%
threshold (hence the blanket exclusion of mini-options and the specific
exclusion of quotes in regards to LEAPS). That said, while the Exchange
has never received any questions regarding the wording in this section
or the applicability of the HAL Step-Up Rebate to mini-options or
LEAPS, the Exchange recognizes that this language is somewhat
confusing. As such, the Exchange proposes to amend this language to
state: ``The Exchange shall rebate to a market-maker against
transaction fees generated from a transaction on the HAL system in a
penny pilot class (excluding mini-options transactions), provided that
at least 70% of the market-maker's quotes in that class (excluding
quotes in LEAPS series and mini-options) in the prior calendar month
were on one side of the NBBO.'' This is not a substantive fee change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitation transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to apply the same fees and fees structure to
VXST options as currently apply to VIX options because both are
volatility indexes and they share significant similarities in
underlying products and product structure. The Exchange believes that
it is reasonable to not assess the VIX Tier Appointment fee and Floor
Broker VIX Surcharge in regards to VXST because those market
participants trading VXST will not be assessed such fees. The Exchange
believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange has expended significant resources in developing VXST and
believes that not assessing these fees in regards to VXST will
encourage trading in VXST. The Exchange believes that the VXST-related
changes to footnote 21 related to the Hybrid 3.0 Execution Surcharge
and footnote 31 related to the SPXW Customer Priority Surcharge are
reasonable because they will result in market participants at times not
being required to pay these Surcharges for SPX and/or SPXW transactions
in the circumstances described. The Exchange believes that this is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, first, the Exchange
makes similar exceptions in relation to VIX. Further, the Exchange does
not want to assess a surcharge for the only possible method of
participation in the VXST settlement process. Also, the Exchange has
expended significant resources in developing its proprietary products
and desires to encourage the uses of such products.
    The Exchange believes that the removal of the listing of the CBSX
Trading Permit and In-House Pager fees from the CBOE Fees Schedule will
prevent any potential confusion, as these are not fees that are
currently assessed by the Exchange. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that moving the listing of its Continuing Education and Qualification
Examination Waiver Fee into the Web CRD\SM\ section will also prevent
any potential confusion, as these fees are actually fees that are
collected and retained by FINRA via the Web CRD\SM\ registration system
(like the other Web CRD\SM\ fees listed on the Fees Schedule). The
Exchange also believes that cleaning up the exclusion language

in the HAL Step-Up Rebate will prevent any possible confusion. The
Exchange also believes that moving the listing of XEO in footnote 6 and
specifically listing out VIX separate from the other VOLATILITY INDEXES
will prevent any possible confusion. Indeed, the Exchange believes that
all of the non-substantive changes proposed herein will prevent
possible confusion. The prevention of possible confusion serves 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.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed application of the VIX options fees structure to VXST
options will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because market participants will be assessed the same fees for VXST
options as are assessed to VIX options (with the two exceptions
described above), and all qualifying market participants will be
assessed the relevant fees equally. The Exchange does not believe that
the proposed application of the VIX options fees structure to VXST
options will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because VXST options will only be listed on CBOE, and the proposed fees
only apply to trading on CBOE. The Exchange does not believe that the
non-substantive changes proposed herein will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because these are merely non-substantive clarifying
changes intended to prevent confusion and are not intended for
competitive purposes.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-037 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-037. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing 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-CBOE-2014-037 and should be
submitted on or before May 15, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09293 Filed 4-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15142-15145]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 210

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0038, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC69

Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, FRA is eliminating the requirement that
certain locomotives display a badge or tag to demonstrate the railroad
has certified the locomotives comply with noise emission standards.
This final rule reduces economic burdens on the rail industry by
removing this badge or tag requirement.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any
time or to Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 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 Watson, Industrial Hygienist,
Office of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, W38-224, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-
1388), or Sam Gilbert, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W31-228,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771,
which requires, when an agency proposes a new significant regulation,
it must identify at least two existing regulations to repeal. FRA
reviewed the Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations in 49 CFR
part 210 \1\ (``part 210'') and identified for potential elimination
the requirement that railroads display a permanent badge or tag in the
cabs of their locomotives certifying the locomotives comply with
locomotive noise emission standards. Eliminating this requirement will
reduce economic burdens on the rail industry without adversely
impacting compliance with the standards. Therefore, in this final rule,
FRA eliminates the badge or tag requirement. FRA is making this rule
effective upon its publication, as this rule relieves a regulatory
burden, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise specified, all references to CFR sections
and parts in this document refer to title 49 of the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates there will be no cost burden associated with this
final rule. In fact, the elimination of the requirement to install a
badge or tag in locomotives will save railroads the cost of labor to
install the badge or tag, and the cost of the badge or tag itself. Over
a 20-year period, FRA estimates railroads will accrue a net present
value of $1 million using a 7 percent discount rate.

II. Background and History

    Pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1234, Pub. L.
92-574), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

promulgated standards in 40 CFR part 201 to limit the noise emitted by
railroad locomotives, cars, and other equipment. In consultation with
EPA, FRA developed regulations in 49 CFR part 210 to ensure compliance
with the noise emission standards. See 41 FR 49183, 49183-84 (Nov. 8,
1976).
    Part 210 requires railroads to certify that locomotives built after
December 31, 1979, comply with locomotive noise emission standards.
Under Sec.  210.27(d), railroads must attach a permanent badge or tag
in the cab of the locomotive displaying the results of the
certification test (including the method, date, and location of the
test, and the sound level reading obtained during the test).
    In 2014, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requested FRA
eliminate the requirement to display the certification of compliance
with locomotive noise emission regulations in the locomotive, in its
comments on a separate proposed rule concerning stenciling requirements
for window glazing. AAR Comment, November 25, 2014, Docket No. FRA-
2012-0103. AAR noted that when FRA added Sec.  210.27(d) in 1983, few
locomotives had been tested and certified to comply with the noise
emission standards. AAR contended that instead of testing individual
locomotives for compliance with the noise emission standards, railroads
currently test locomotives by model. Locomotives are built to the
manufacturer's written specifications and those written specifications
detail the technical features of a locomotive's particular model,
including its certification under Sec.  210.27. Documentation of that
testing is maintained by the railroads as a usual and customary
practice, and may be consulted if FRA has a doubt about whether a
locomotive has been tested for compliance with locomotive noise
emission regulations.
    FRA declined to eliminate the display requirement for noise
certification at that time because it was beyond the scope of the
window-glazing rulemaking. However, FRA said it would consider the
merits of AAR's request and evaluate how to address the issue in the
future. 81 FR 6775, 6778 (Feb. 9, 2016).
    FRA continually reviews and revises its regulations to ensure the
regulatory burden on the rail industry is not excessive, clarify the
application of existing requirements and remove requirements no longer
necessary, and keep pace with emerging technology, changing operational
realities, and safety concerns. In addition, on January 30, 2017, the
President issued Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs), which requires agencies to identify at
least two existing regulations to repeal when they propose a new
significant regulation. Because the badge or tag requirement is
unnecessary for FRA enforcement of the noise testing requirements, FRA
determined repealing Sec.  210.27(d) would reduce the burden on the
rail industry without adversely impacting FRA's ability to ensure
compliance with locomotive noise emission regulations. Accordingly, on
July 16, 2018 (83 FR 32826), FRA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to eliminate the requirement for
locomotives to display a permanent badge or tag certifying compliance
with noise emission standards.

III. Discussion of Comments

    The NPRM solicited written comments from the public under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). By the close of the
comment period on September 14, 2018, FRA received one comment, a joint
comment from AAR and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA).
    In the comment, AAR and ASLRRA stated railroads have been
advocating for the removal of the certification display requirement
since 2011. AAR and ASLRRA explained the certification display
requirement is no longer necessary because the overwhelming majority of
locomotives have already been tested by the manufacturers on a model-
by-model basis. Accordingly, AAR and ASLRRA supported the NPRM's
proposal to eliminate the certification display requirement.
    FRA received no public comments conveying a need to change the
scope or substance of the proposed rule. Therefore, in this final rule
FRA eliminates the requirement for locomotives to display a permanent
badge or tag certifying compliance with noise emission standards.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 210.27 New Locomotive Certification

    Section 210.27 requires railroads to certify that their locomotives
comply with noise emission standards. Specifically, paragraph (a)
requires railroads to certify that locomotives built after December 31,
1979, comply with the noise emission standards. Paragraph (b) provides
railroads must determine certification for each locomotive model by
load cell testing or passby testing. Paragraph (c) states if railroads
use passby testing, they should conduct the test with the locomotive
operating at maximum rated horsepower output. Under paragraph (d),
railroads must attach a permanent badge or tag in the cab of the
locomotive to display the results of the certification test.
    FRA determined this permanent badge or tag is no longer necessary,
and this final rule removes paragraph (d) in its entirety. FRA notes
although railroads no longer need to display a badge or tag in the
locomotive cab, the locomotives still need to be tested and certified
to comply with the noise emission standards, as required under
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FRA evaluated this final rule consistent with existing policies and
procedures, and determined it to be non-significant under Executive
Order 12866 as well as DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034
(February 26, 1979)). This final rule is considered an Executive Order
13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of the
rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
    FRA is eliminating the requirement that locomotives display a
permanent badge or tag to demonstrate they have been certified to
comply with noise emission standards. (The permanent badge or tag will
hereafter be referred to as a ``badge'' in this analysis.) A badge is
typically a metal plate installed inside the cab of the locomotive.
Railroads will benefit from this final rule because a badge had been
required in all locomotives. Any railroad purchasing new locomotives
will not be required to display a badge, therefore saving it money.
Also, badges will no longer need to be replaced when locomotives are
overhauled.
    FRA estimates there will be no cost burden associated with this
final rule. The elimination of the requirement to install a badge in
locomotives will save railroads the cost of labor to install the badge,
and the cost of the badge itself. Over a 20-year period, this analysis
finds $1 million in present value cost savings, estimated using a 7
percent discount rate. FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a
regulatory analysis addressing the economic impact of this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (94 Stat. 1164, Pub. L. 96-
354), as amended, and codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and
Executive Order

13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking),
require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their
impact on ``small entities'' for purposes of the RFA. An agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and
certifies a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. FRA has determined this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small
entities, in consultation with the Small Business Administration and in
conjunction with public comment. FRA published a final statement of
agency policy that formally designates ``small entities'' or ``small
businesses'' as being railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials
shippers with the revenue of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49
CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual
revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions
that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9,
2003), codified at 49 CFR part 209, appendix C. FRA is using this
definition for this rulemaking.
    FRA estimates there are 704 Class III railroads, most of which will
be affected by this final rule. Most Class III railroads do not
purchase new locomotives; rather, they purchase used locomotives from
Class I and Class II railroads. Therefore, any badges required will
have already been installed when obtained from the larger railroad. If
a small railroad did purchase a new locomotive, however, they would
save money because the badge would no longer be required. Small
railroads will also benefit since they will not need to replace badges
as they age or when locomotives are overhauled. Therefore, any impact
on small railroads by this final regulation will likely be small and
entirely beneficial. Thus, pursuant to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(b), the
FRA Administrator hereby certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule are
being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that contain the current information
collection requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each
requirement are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Respondent         Total annual      Average time per      Total annual
           CFR section                 universe            responses           response          burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210.27(a)--New Locomotive         4 Manufacturers...  4 requests........  30 minutes........  2 hours.
 Certification--Request to
 Manufacturer for Certification.
210.27(d)--New Locomotive         4 Manufacturers...  790 badges........  30 minutes........  minus 395 hours
 Certification--Identification                                                                 (Previously
 of Certified Locomotive by                                                                    Approved Burden
 Badge Plate (Rescission of                                                                    by OMB).
 Provision).
210.31--Recorded Measurements of  4 Manufacturers...  745 forms/records.  3 hours...........  2,235 hours.
 Locomotive Noise Emission Test.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  4 Manufacturers...  749 responses.....  2.987 hours.......  2,237 hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed
data, and reviewing the information.
    For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to
OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ms.
Kimberly Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of
Information Technology, FRA, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be
submitted via email to Mr. Brogan at [email protected], or to Ms.
Toone at [email protected].
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this final rule between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule.
The current OMB control number for this information collection is OMB
No. 2130-0527.

Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999),
requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), agencies may not issue a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State
and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local
government officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
    FRA analyzed this final rule consistent with the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 13132. FRA determined the final rule will
not have substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship
between the national government and States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In
addition, FRA determined this final rule will not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on State and local governments.

Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order
13132 do not apply.
    However, this final rule could have preemptive effect under certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically the
former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (former FRSA), repealed and
re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20106, and the former Locomotive Boiler
Inspection Act (LIA) at 45 U.S.C. 22-34, repealed and re-codified at 49
U.S.C. 20701-03. The former FRSA provides that States may not adopt or
continue in effect any law, regulation, or order related to railroad
safety or security that covers the subject matter of a regulation
prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with
respect to railroad safety matters) or the Secretary of Homeland
Security (with respect to railroad security matters), except when the
State law, regulation, or order qualifies under the ``local safety or
security hazard'' exception to section 20106. Moreover, the U.S.
Supreme Court has held the former LIA preempts the field concerning
locomotive safety. See Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605
(1926) and Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012).
Therefore, it is possible States could be preempted from requiring that
locomotives display a permanent badge or tag certifying the locomotive
complies with noise emission standards.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this final rule consistent with its ``Procedures
for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures), 64 FR 28545
(May 26, 1999), as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive
Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined this
final rule is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28547-48.
    Under section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has
further concluded no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to
this regulation that might trigger the need for a more detailed
environmental review. Consequently, FRA finds this final rule is not a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2
U.S.C. 1531, each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited
by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to
the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically
set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1532, further
requires that before promulgating any general notice of proposed
rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for
which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency
shall prepare a written statement detailing the effect on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not
result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in
any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and thus preparation of
such a statement is not required.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 210

    Noise control.

The Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 210 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 210--RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION COMPLIANCE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 210 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 17, Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234 (42 U.S.C.
4916); 49 CFR 1.89.

Sec.  210.27   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  210.27 by removing paragraph (d).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Ronald L. Batory,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-07389 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 8960]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS14-1-000]

TWP Pipeline LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 9, 2013, TWP Pipeline LLC, pursuant to
section 358.1(d) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 358.1(d) filed a request for
a partial waiver of the Commission's Standards of Conduct applicable to
interstate natural gas pipelines.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2014.

    Dated: February 7, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03192 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44959-44961]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0642]

Public Workshop Related to the International Maritime
Organization's Development of a Mandatory Code for Ships Operating in
Polar Waters

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Coast Guard will hold a public workshop in
Washington, DC on topics related to the development of a mandatory code
for ships operating in polar waters by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO Polar Code). Various safety topics will be discussed
including design, equipment, and operational requirements. This
workshop is intended to be an interactive exchange of information
between policymakers, industry experts, and interested members of the
public.

DATES: The public workshop will be held for two days beginning
Thursday, August 22, 2013 at 9 a.m., Eastern Time and ending Friday,
August 23, 2013 at 4 p.m., Eastern Time. The daily meeting schedule
will be from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. This workshop is open to the public.
See ADDRESSES for more information about submitting comments to the
docket.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at the United States Coast
Guard Headquarters Transpoint Building,

Room 2501, 2100 Second Street Southwest, Washington, DC 20593,
approximately 1 mile from the Waterfront-SEU Metro Station. Due to
building security requirements, each visitor must present two forms of
government-issued photo identification in order to gain entrance to the
building.
    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0642 before or after the meeting using any one of the following
methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
Our online docket is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2013-0642.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning the
workshop, please call or email Lieutenant Andrew Gibbons, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    If you are interested in formally presenting information on a topic
on the agenda please contact Lieutenant Andrew Gibbons at the telephone
number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this notice. Comments submitted to the docket and
informal public comments during the workshop are also encouraged. All
comments and presentations received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information
you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (USCG-2013-0642) and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We
recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2013-0642'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search,'' find
this notice in the list of Results, and then click on the corresponding
``Comment Now'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2013-0642'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search'' and
use the filters on the left side of the page to highlight ``Public
Submissions'' or other document types. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Workshop

    The Coast Guard will hold a public workshop regarding various
safety topics including design, equipment, and operational requirements
related to the development of the IMO Polar Code. For more information
regarding the dates and times of the public workshop please see the
DATES section above.
    This workshop is intended to be an interactive exchange of
information between policymakers, industry experts, and interested
members of the public. The public workshop scope will include current
regulations, additional risks and hazards unique to the Arctic and
Antarctic regions, draft provisions in the IMO Polar Code, industry
best practices, and any additional safeguards to be considered. The
primary topics that will be considered at the public meeting include:
     General Overview of the IMO Polar Code;
     Ship Categories/Polar Class Rules;
     Operational Requirements including a Polar Water
Operations Manual, Voyage Planning, and Contingency planning;
     Life-saving Equipment;
     Low Temperature Impacts on Design/Equipment.

Procedural

    Please note that the workshop has a limited number of seats and may
close early if all business is finished.
    Members of the public may attend this workshop up to the seating
capacity of the room. To facilitate the security process related to
building access, or to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan
to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, Lieutenant Andrew
Gibbons, at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, or in writing
at Commandant (CG-ENG-3), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-7126, not later than Friday, August 16, 2013. We
may not be able to accommodate requests made after August 16, 2013.
Please note that due to building security requirements, each visitor
must present two valid, government-issued photo identifications in
order to gain entrance to the Coast Guard Headquarters building. The
Coast Guard Headquarters building is accessible by taxi and privately
owned conveyance (public transportation is not generally available).
However, public parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely
limited.
    Members of the public are encouraged to participate and join in
discussions, subject to the discretion of the moderator. If you bring
written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard
personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These
comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you have provided.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Lieutenant Andrew Gibbons at the telephone number or email address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.

    Dated: July 19, 2013.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-17914 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P