[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31350-31351]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0357]

Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act of 2010, Available
Technology

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register published on May 25, 2011, the United
States Coast Guard solicited public comment on the availability of
technology to meet certain provisions of the Cruise Vessel Security and
Safety Act of 2010(CVSSA), specifically related to video recording and
overboard detection technologies. The Notice of request for comments
published with errors in the preamble, specifically, the addresses for
submitting comments was incorrect and should have directed commenters
to http://www.regulations.gov for online comment submissions, and to
the ``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'' for mailing comments.

DATES: This correction is effective May 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this correction,
contact Jennifer Mehaffey, Office of Regulations and Administrative
Law,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the original regulation, call or e-mail Lieutenant
Commander Latasha Pennant, Office of Design and Engineering Standards
(CG-5211), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR doc 2011-12988 appearing on page 30374
in the issue of Wednesday, May 25, 2011, the following corrections are
made:
    1. On page 30374, in the second column, revise the ADDRESSES
section, to read as follows:
    ``ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number
USCG-2011-0357 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.''
    2. On page 30374, in the third column, revise the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, to read as follows:

``Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material. All
comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this notice (USCG-2011-0357) and provide a reason for
each comment 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 e-mail address, or a telephone 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
type ``USCG-2011-0357'' in the ``Keyword'' 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 them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.
    Viewing the comments and related material: To view the comments go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2011-0357'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. 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.
    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, system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).''

    Dated: May 25, 2011.
Kathryn Sinniger,
Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG-0943), U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-13437 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60669-60671]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25568]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0301; FRL-9933-51]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were
issued during the period April 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 to control
unforeseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the emergency exemption or denial.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0301 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following
State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the
following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has
also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.
    Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use
of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations
(commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal
agencies and are of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.

    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of infants and children to residues of the pesticide.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency issued
the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide
authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, and the
duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation
for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U.S. States and Territories

Arkansas
State Plant Board
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of anthraquinone on rice
seed to repel blackbirds and reduce damage to seedlings; April 1, 2015
to June 15, 2015.
California
Department of Environmental Protection
    Crisis exemption: On June 25, 2015 the California Department of
Environmental Protection declared a crisis for the use of Aspergillus
Flavus AF36 on figs to reduce aflatoxin-producing fungi on dried figs.
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of etofenprox in
mushroom cultivation to control phorid and sciarid flies; April 27,
2015 to April 27, 2016.
Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; April 2, 2015 to
December 31, 2015.
Delaware
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple,
peach, and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; April 6,
2015 to October 15, 2015.
    EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; May 4, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
Delaware
Department of Health and Social Services
    Crisis exemptions: On June 11, 2015 the Delaware Department of
Health and Social Services declared crisis exemptions for the use of
ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, paracetic acid, and
sodium hypochlorite to inactivate Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores
in laboratories that processed samples originating from Dugway Proving
Ground potentially containing viable anthrax spores.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Quarantine Exemption: EPA authorized the use of naled in a bait
treatment to eradicate non-native and invasive Tephritid fruit flies
which are responsive to the attractant, methyl eugenol; June 4, 2015 to
June 4, 2016.
Georgia
Department of Agriculture
    Denial: On April 15, 2015 EPA denied the use of a pesticide product
containing the active ingredient terbufos on cotton to control plant
parasitic nematodes. This request was denied because the Agency was
unable to conclude that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result
in ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including
exposure of infants and children to residues of the pesticide as
required under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
Idaho
Department of Agriculture
    Crisis exemption: On March 6, 2015 the Idaho Department of
Agriculture declared a crisis for the use of thiabendazole on succulent
pea seeds to suppress seed-borne Ascochyta blight and protect against
Fusarium root rot.
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hexythiazox on sugar
beets for control of spider mites; May 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Kansas
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; April 13, 2015 to
December 31, 2015.
Maryland
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple,
peach, and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; April 6,
2015 to October 15, 2015.
Maine
Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; May 4, 2015 to December
31, 2015.
Michigan
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
    Crisis exemption: On April 14, 2015 the Michigan Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development declared a crisis for the use of
fluensulfone to control plant-parasitic nematodes in carrot fields.
    On June 9, 2015 the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development declared a crisis for the use of fluopicolide on hops to
control downy mildew.
Minnesota
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; May 22, 2015 to December
31, 2015.
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; April 29, 2015 to
December 31, 2015.
North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Denial: On April 15, 2015 EPA denied the use of a pesticide product
containing the active ingredient terbufos on cotton to control plant
parasitic nematodes. This request was denied because the Agency was
unable to conclude that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result
in ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including
exposure of infants and children to residues of the pesticide as
required under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple,
peach, and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; May 7,
2015 to October 15, 2015.

Oregon
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hexythiazox on sugar
beets for control of spider mites; May 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushroom cultivation to control Trichoderma green mold; March 26, 2015
to March 26, 2016.
    EPA authorized the use of etofenprox in mushroom cultivation to
control phorid and sciarid flies; April 27, 2015 to April 27, 2016.
    EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple, peach, and nectarine
to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; May 7, 2015 to October 15,
2015.
South Carolina
Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Denial: On April 15, 2015 EPA denied the use of a pesticide product
containing the active ingredient terbufos on cotton to control plant
parasitic nematodes. This request was denied because the Agency was
unable to conclude that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result
in ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including
exposure of infants and children to residues of the pesticide as
required under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
Tennessee
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on
sorghum to control sugarcane aphid; June 8, 2015 to November 30, 2015.
Texas
Department of Agriculture
    Denial: On April 15, 2015 EPA denied the use of a pesticide product
containing the active ingredient terbufos on cotton to control plant
parasitic nematodes. This request was denied because the Agency was
unable to conclude that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result
in ``a reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including
exposure of infants and children to residues of the pesticide as
required under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
Texas
Department of State Health Services
    Crisis exemptions: On June 8, 2015 the Texas Department of State
Health Services declared crisis exemptions for the use of ethylene
oxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, paracetic acid, and sodium
hypochlorite to inactivate Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores in
laboratories that processed samples originating from Dugway Proving
Ground potentially containing viable anthrax spores.
Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food
    Crisis exemption: On June 19, 2015 the Utah Department of
Agriculture and Food declared crisis exemptions for the use of sodium
hypochlorite to inactivate Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores in
laboratories that processed samples originating from Dugway Proving
Ground potentially containing viable anthrax spores.
Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple,
peach, and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; April 6,
2015 to October 15, 2015.
Washington
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on
asparagus for control of the European asparagus aphid; June 17, 2015 to
October 30, 2015.
West Virginia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple,
peach, and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; May 7,
2015 to October 15, 2015.
Wisconsin
Department of Health Services
    Crisis exemptions: On June 12, 2015 the Wisconsin Department of
Health Services declared crisis exemptions for the use of ethylene
oxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, paracetic acid, and sodium
hypochlorite to inactivate Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores in
laboratories that processed samples originating from Dugway Proving
Ground potentially containing viable anthrax spores.
Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of diflubenzuron on
alfalfa for control of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets; April 14, 2015
to October 31, 2015.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency Management
    Quarantine Exemptions: EPA authorized the uses of ethylene oxide,
formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, paracetic acid, and sodium
hypochlorite for use in contaminated buildings for decontamination from
anthrax spores. These exemptions were authorized for the purposes of
emergency preparedness so the necessary materials are allowed and
available to be used in the event of an anthrax contamination, either
deliberate or accidental. June 4, 2015 to June 4, 2018.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 16, 2016.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-25568 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 82005]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27725]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90644; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Exclude
Special Purpose Acquisition Companies From the Requirement That at
Least 50% of a Company's Round Lot Holders Each Hold Unrestricted
Securities With a Market Value of at Least $2,500

December 11, 2020.
    On October 8, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to exclude special purpose acquisition companies
from the requirement that at least 50% of a company's round lot holders
each hold unrestricted securities with a market value of at least
$2,500. On October 21, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the proposed rule
change in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
October 28, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90245 (October 22,
2020), 85 FR 68400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is December 12, 2020. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
January 26, 2021, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27725 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 29317-29319]
[DOCID:fr25my07-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0279; FRL-8130-7]

Army Chemical Agent Rocket Incinerator Approval to Dispose of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls under the Toxic Substances Control Act;
Notice of Application to Renew, Data Availability, and Modification of
Existing Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army (Army) has applied to renew an
approval to dispose of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The renewal would allow the Army to
continue to incinerate M55 chemical agent rockets containing PCBs using
the Deactivation Furnace Systems (DFS). This action announces: EPA's
consideration of the Army's application, the availability of trial burn
data that will inform EPA's consideration, and the modification of the
public participation condition of the Army's existing approval. EPA is
requesting comments on the renewal application and trial burn data.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2007].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0279, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0279. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2007-0279. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. In this
instance, because of the enormity of the volume of data, EPA has posted
a summary (entitled ``Executive Summary'') of the trial burn report
from each facility. If the interested party needs more information than
is found in the Executive Summary, complete trial burn data is
available on compact disc (CD). To obtain a CD, please contact the
technical information contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in

hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: Hiroshi Dodohara, National
Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington,

DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Department of the Army (NAICS code 928110).
     Residents or homeowners located near the affected
incinerators.
    This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

A. Background

    In 2002, EPA issued a PCB disposal approval under TSCA section 6(e)
and 40 CFR 761.70(d) to the Army to allow for the incineration of M55
chemical agent rockets containing PCBs using Deactivation Furnace
Systems (DFS). The existing approval is included in the docket for this
notice. The approval allows for the disposal to occur at four separate
facilities: Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Anniston Army
Depot, Anniston, Alabama (ANCDF); Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal
Facility, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas (PBCDF); Tooele
Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Deseret Chemical Depot, Tooele, Utah
(TOCDF); and Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Umatilla
Chemical Depot, near Hermiston, Oregon (UMCDF). The Army has now
applied to renew that approval, which is currently set to expire July
6, 2007. The Army's renewal application only applies to PBCDF and
UMCDF; the other two facilities have completed operations.

B. Application for Renewal

    EPA is considering the Army's request for renewal. The renewal
would allow the Army to continue to incinerate M55 chemical agent
rockets containing PCBs using DFS at the remaining two sites. Based on
the trial burn results, EPA believes the conditions in the current TSCA
approval are necessary and adequate to ensure proper disposal of PCBs
in compliance with TSCA. However, both PBCDF and UMCDF are currently
operating under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permits
as well as the existing PCB approval. These RCRA permits impose several
of the same operating conditions as are required by the current TSCA
approval. Thus, in order to coordinate the requirements of the two
programs, EPA does not plan to include the duplicative conditions in
the renewed TCSA approval. EPA intends for the renewal to only retain
the operating conditions from the current TSCA approval that are more
stringent than those provided in the RCRA permits. These more stringent
conditions, combined with the condition that the facilities maintain
valid RCRA permits, will ensure proper disposal of PCBs in compliance
with TSCA. For example, EPA plans to retain a target value for the
secondary combustor operating temperature based on conditions during
the trial burn. In addition, the carbon monoxide concentration in the
flue gas that triggers the automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) would be
100 parts per million based on real time, with a 5-minute delay.

C. Availability of Trial Burn Data

    This action also announces the availability of trial burn data from
PBCDF and UMCDF. The current approval required certain sampling for
PCBs at each DFS unit:
    1. Stack sampling for PCBs.
    2. Sampling of kiln/HDC (heated discharge conveyor) residue.
    3. Cyclone residue.
    4. Scrubber brine for PCB analysis.
    The purpose of the trial burns was to demonstrate whether the DFS
units meet the PCB incinerator performance standards. These results
showed that the standards were met, and the data are now available.

D. Approval Modification

    Condition 1.d.(3) of the existing approval, provides that: ``EPA
will hold a public meeting in each community after the trial burn data
in each respective facility becomes available.'' (A copy of Condition
1.d.(3) is available in the docket for this document.) Effective at the
time of publication of this notice, EPA is hereby modifying the
existing approval to remove that condition for the remainder of the
approval. Meetings were conducted before and after-trial-burn data
became available at ANCDF and TOCDF, but participation was very limited
at the post-trial-burn meetings. No members of the public appeared at
meetings previously held at PBCDF and UMCDF. Based on the lack of
public participation, EPA is changing the public participation process
to include a broader audience and a 15-day opportunity for comment.
Trial burn data will be available to the public through the docket and
in lieu of conducting additional public meetings at PBCDF and UMCDF,
EPA is allowing for the submission of comments, in written or
electronic format.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 21, 2007.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. E7-10117 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13841-13844]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04495]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2023-0007]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement;
notice of public meetings; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as the lead
agency, announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the implementation of the plan for National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP)--Endangered Species Act (ESA) Integration in
Oregon. FEMA released a draft of this plan in October 2021. Notice is
hereby given that the public scoping process has begun for the
preparation of an EIS for the proposed action. The purpose of the
scoping process is to solicit public comments regarding the range of
issues, information, and analyses relevant to the proposed action,
including potential environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives
to address in the EIS. This notice also notifies the public that FEMA
intends to host in-person and virtual public scoping meetings, host a
web-based scoping room to provide additional information to the public,
and solicit comments on potential issues, concerns, and reasonable
alternatives that FEMA should consider. FEMA is preparing this EIS in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
and the NEPA regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental
Quality as of the date of this Notice.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by FEMA on or
before May 5, 2023. FEMA will hold at least two virtual public scoping
meetings and at least two in-person public scoping meetings in Oregon
at the times, dates, and locations listed on the project EIS website
(see ADDRESSES section of this document). Reasonable accommodations are
available for people with disabilities. To request a reasonable
accommodation, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below as soon as possible. Last minute requests will be
accepted but may not be possible to fulfill.

ADDRESSES: The project EIS website with the draft plan and public
meeting information is at https://www.fema.gov/about/organization/region-10/oregon/nfip-esa-integration. You may provide oral or written
comments at either the in-person or virtual public scoping meetings.
You may also provide written comments via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for FEMA-2023-0007 and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions must include the agency name and Docket ID for this
notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you
provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You
may wish to read the Privacy and Security notice, which can be viewed
by clicking on the ``Privacy and Security Notice'' link on the homepage
of www.regulations.gov. Commenters are encouraged to identify the
number of the specific question or questions to which they are
responding. For access to the docket and to read comments received by
FEMA, go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID FEMA-
2023-0007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Science Kilner, Regional
Environmental Officer, FEMA Region 10, [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>, or visit the EIS website (see
ADDRESSES above).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA administers the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), a nationwide program that reduces future
flood damage by requiring minimum floodplain management standards and
provides protection for property owners against potential flood losses
through insurance. The NFIP was established by the United States
Congress in 1968 with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act
(NFIA). This law mandated that FEMA identify the nation's flood-prone
areas and make insurance available to participating communities (local,
tribal, and state governments) that implement floodplain management
requirements that meet or exceed the minimum standards of the program.
The NFIP is the primary source of flood insurance coverage for
residential properties in the United States.
    The NFIP also engages in many ``noninsurance'' activities to serve
the public interest. These include identifying and mapping flood
hazards, disseminating flood-risk information through flood maps, and
setting minimum floodplain management standards for community
participation. The NFIP contributes to community resilience by setting
minimum standards and offering incentive programs such as the Community
Rating System (CRS). Through the CRS, communities are credited for
activities that exceed FEMA's minimum NFIP requirements and further
reduce flood risk.
    Participation in the NFIP is voluntary but necessary for
communities to obtain access to NFIP flood insurance. This insurance is
designed to protect against the risk of flood losses, thus reducing the
escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents
caused by floods. FEMA sets the minimum standards for participating
communities through regulation for participants, although communities
may adopt stricter standards. Participating communities are responsible
for adoption and enforcement of the floodplain management standards.
However, FEMA may place communities on probation or suspend them if
they fail to adopt or enforce the minimum standards. (44 CFR 59.22(a-
b)). If communities do not remedy the issue, they may be removed from
the program. (44 CFR 59.22(c)).
    As a Federal agency, FEMA must consider whether NFIP activities
affect listed threatened or endangered species protected by the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under Section 7 of the ESA, FEMA is
required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively ``the
Services'') when any action the agency carries out, funds, or
authorizes may affect a listed endangered or threatened species or
adversely modify the designated critical habitat of such species. A
lawsuit brought against FEMA in 2009 by Portland Audubon Society, et
al., sought to highlight the agency's failure to consult with the
Services on the implementation of the NFIP in Oregon. A settlement
agreement was reached in 2010, and FEMA initiated informal consultation
with NMFS soon after. In July 2011, FEMA initiated formal consultation
with the submittal of a Programmatic Biological Assessment on the NFIP
for Oregon state listed species and critical habitat.
    As a condition of the settlement agreement, FEMA consulted on NFIP
minimum floodplain management criteria within Oregon, mapping
activities, and implementation of the CRS, and implemented changes to
the Conditional Letter of Map Change (CLOMC) application process. In
July 2011, FEMA initiated formal consultation with the submittal of a

Programmatic Biological Assessment on the NFIP for Oregon state listed
species and critical habitat.
    On April 4, 2016, NMFS completed its analysis of the effects of the
NFIP on species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and
issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) titled, ``Endangered Species Act
(ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Jeopardy and Destruction or Adverse Modification
of Critical Habitat Biological Opinion and Section 7(a)(2) `Not Likely
to Adversely Affect' Determination for the Implementation of the
National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Oregon. NMFS
Consultation Number NWR-2011-3197.''

Proposed Action Area

    The proposed action area includes any part of Oregon within the six
NOAA Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Domains that is in a current or
future mapped special flood hazard area (SFHA) in a community that is
participating or may participate in the NFIP.
    Oregon and any counties, incorporated municipalities, and tribal
governments within the proposed action area will potentially be
affected by the proposed action. All Oregon counties are within the
boundaries of the proposed action area, with the exception of Baker,
Harney, Klamath, Lake and Malheur Counties.
    The proposed action area is defined by the boundaries of six NOAA
Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Domains within Oregon: Oregon Coast,
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast, Willamette River, Lower
Columbia River, Middle Columbia River, and Snake River. NOAA has mapped
these Recovery Domains at https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/portal/home/webmap/viewer.html.
    Within these recovery domains, the proposed action applies to
communities that are participating in the NFIP. However, since
participation is voluntary and a community may join or leave the
program, this EIS applies to both current and future NFIP communities.
Information about the NFIP in Oregon is available through the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development at https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/NH/Pages/NFIP.aspx.
    For a proposed development activity to be subject to the new
requirements, it must be proposed in a location subject to the minimum
standards of the NFIP, which means that, at the time the activity is
proposed, it is (1) within the geographic jurisdiction of a community
that participates in the NFIP, and (2) it is within the mapped special
flood hazard area (SFHA). To determine if a property is in the current
effective SFHA, access the FEMA Flood Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
    The proposed action, best available data on flood risk, and climate
change may add to or alter the mapped special flood hazard areas (SFHA)
and require local land regulations adopt additional performance
standards to protect threatened or endangered species. Therefore, any
development activity within the proposed action area may be subject to
new requirements resulting from the proposed action.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

    In the BiOp, NMFS concluded that the current implementation of the
NFIP in Oregon is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 16
anadromous fish species and the Southern Resident Killer Whale, all of
which are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and result
in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed
critical habitat for the 16 anadromous fish species. NMFS's conclusion
establishes the need for the proposed action.
    Federal regulation, at 50 CFR 402.14(h), requires NMFS to include
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA) in a jeopardy BiOp. NMFS
proposed alternative approaches to NFIP performance standards that,
according to NMFS, when implemented would avoid continued jeopardy for
the listed species and habitat described in the BiOp. Based on the BiOp
and NMFS's recommendations in the RPA, and pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA, FEMA must make several changes to how the NFIP is
implemented in parts of Oregon.
    Therefore, the purpose of the proposed action is to implement
changes to the administration of the NFIP that align closely to the
recommendations in NMFS's BiOp in the proposed action area. The
recommended changes are designed to avoid jeopardy to the ESA-listed
species and critical habitats described in the BiOp, while also
maintaining consistency with FEMA's existing NFIP statutory and
regulatory authorities and the program's objectives. Proposed changes
must be practicable and implementable by the NFIP-participating
communities.
    The proposed changes recommended in the BiOp include: (1)
information changes provided by FEMA to Oregon NFIP-participating
communities, (2) changes to mapping products, and (3) reporting
requirements for these communities. FEMA must also ensure that NFIP-
participating communities within the proposed action area adopt
measures needed to avoid continued jeopardy and/or adverse habitat
modification and collectively meet a standard of ``no net loss'' for
three key natural floodplain functions essential to the survival of the
ESA-listed species identified in the Oregon NFIP BiOp.
    The Oregon NFIP BiOp and its RPA do not directly require any action
of state, local, or tribal governments participating in the NFIP
because the consultation on NFIP impacts to ESA-listed species occurred
between FEMA and NMFS. FEMA does not have authority in local land use
decisions or to regulate floodplain development. However, for
communities to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt the minimum
performance standards for the program in their local land use
regulations. The ultimate authority to regulate development--including
the provision and approval of permits, inspection of property, and
citing violations--is granted to communities by the states. State and
local governments, through their planning, zoning, and building code
enabling authorities, make the determination of how a property must be
developed.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    As a result of the RPAs, FEMA must implement the NFIP such that its
influence over the individual floodplain development actions permitted
by local and tribal governments participating in the program does not
jeopardize ESA-listed species and their critical habitat. FEMA
determined the best approach to meeting the intent of the RPA was to
develop an Implementation Plan outlining the actions the agency will
take to ensure its implementation of the NFIP in Oregon is compliant
with the ESA going forward.
    The proposed action that FEMA will evaluate in the EIS is the
execution of the Oregon Implementation Plan for NFIP-ESA Integration. A
copy of the draft plan is available on the project EIS website (see the
ADDRESSES section of this document). The draft plan comprises changes
to information provided to communities, mapping products, and reporting
requirements for NFIP-participating communities; as well as a range of
potential measures communities will need to select from to collectively
meet a ``no net loss'' standard of key natural floodplain functions
essential to the survival of the ESA-listed species identified in the
Oregon NFIP BiOp.

    In 2016-2017, FEMA asked the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) to help identify any potential challenges with
the NMFS approach to implementation outlined in the BiOp (the
``reasonable and prudent alternative''). DLCD convened a set of
stakeholder work groups to help identify barriers and to propose
alternative approaches. In 2020-2021, the Oregon NFIP Implementation
Planning Group, informed by the DLCD stakeholder work groups, held a
series of workshops that culminated with the draft Implementation Plan
that FEMA is now analyzing under NEPA. The proposed action is the
outcome of this multi-year process.
    In the EIS, FEMA will analyze a No-Action Alternative, under which
FEMA will not implement any changes to the NFIP in Oregon. This
alternative, required by the NEPA Implementing Regulations, would not
fulfill the purpose and need.
    The draft Implementation Plan identifies four paths that
communities can take: model ordinance, ordinance checklist, approved
community compliance plan, and ESA Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan
or ESA Section 4(d) Limit 12. These paths are not NEPA alternatives.
All four constitute FEMA's preferred alternative, as described in the
draft Implementation Plan. A community may choose a single path for
their entire jurisdiction or different paths in different parts of the
jurisdiction. As each path leads to the same performance standard--no
net loss of three key natural floodplain functions--each path will
constrain development in the floodplain and require appropriate
mitigation for loss of natural floodplain function. Therefore, the
impacts to resources analyzed in this EIS will not likely depend on the
specific path.
    The RPA and 2021 draft Implementation Plan identified some elements
for future FEMA decision. This EIS will discuss the options for these
elements; the final EIS will consolidate those elements into the final
preferred alternative. These implementation options are not NEPA
alternatives by themselves because they cannot stand alone and fulfill
the purpose and need.
    FEMA will also analyze other reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action identified during the scoping period. Reasonable
alternatives must fulfil the purpose and need and may include
additional or alternative avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures that achieve the no-net loss of floodplain function
performance standard.

Summary of Expected Impacts

    The proposed action is to ensure that NFIP-participating
communities within the BiOp Action Area adopt measures to collectively
meet a standard of ``no net loss'' for key natural floodplain functions
essential to the survival of the ESA-listed species identified in the
Oregon NFIP BiOp. These functions, as defined in the 2021 draft
Implementation Plan, are: flood storage, water quality, and riparian
vegetation.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.1(g), the draft EIS will identify
the effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. The
regulations define effects to include ecological effects (such as the
effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and
functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural,
economic, social, or health. Effects may be direct, indirect, or
cumulative. Effects may also be beneficial or detrimental. As discussed
in the Comments section below, submission of public comments, research,
studies, and data on these impacts are crucial to FEMA's development of
a comprehensive draft EIS.
    Based on the Oregon NFIP BiOp, the DLCD stakeholder work groups,
and the Oregon NIFIP Implementation Planning Group process, FEMA
initially expects the proposed action to benefit natural floodplain
functions, threatened and endangered species habitat, and essential
fish habitat. FEMA also initially expects the proposed action to
potentially significantly impact communities, individuals, and
businesses that intend on developing in the floodplain. FEMA
anticipates that there may be adverse indirect impacts to community
land use planning, economics, social structures, development plans,
minority, low-income populations, Tribes, infrastructure, agriculture,
aquaculture, energy production and transmission, and transportation.
    At the end of the NEPA process, FEMA will issue a Record of
Decision (ROD) identifying the environmentally preferable alternative
(40 CFR 1505.2). FEMA will discuss preferences among alternatives based
on economic, technical, and biological factors, and its statutory
mission. FEMA will also explain how it considered these and other
factors in making a final decision.

Anticipated Permits and Other Authorizations

    For communities to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt the
minimum performance standards into their local land use regulations.
Therefore, FEMA can implement the proposed Implementation Plan, make
changes in mapping products, reporting requirements, and minimum
standards without permits or other authorizations.
    However, communities will have to individually decide whether to
(1) participate in or withdraw from the NFIP, and (2) if they choose to
participate, determine which path(s) they will take to ensure that
their individual floodplain development actions as influenced by the
NFIP do not further jeopardize ESA-listed species and their designated
critical habitats. FEMA cannot require a community to pursue a
particular pathway for ESA compliance.
    Pursuant to 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2), a community must obtain and maintain
documentation of compliance with the appropriate Federal or state laws.
Therefore, each individual project proponent (homeowner or other
developer) is responsible for securing applicable local, state, and
Federal permits.

Schedule for the Decision-Making Process

    After the scoping period, FEMA will prepare a draft EIS and file it
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA will publish a
notice of availability (NOA) and announce a minimum 45-day public
comment period. After the public comment period ends, FEMA will review
and respond to the comments received and develop the final EIS. A ROD
will be completed no sooner than 30 days after the final EIS is
released, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11.
    FEMA currently expects to make the draft EIS available to the
public in late 2023. In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.10, FEMA
anticipates that the agency will publish both the draft and final EIS
and sign the ROD within two years from the issuance of this notice.

Public Scoping Process, Including Scoping Meetings

    This NEPA scoping process is in addition to previous opportunities
available to the public to understand and influence FEMA's draft
Implementation Plan.
    The purpose of the EIS scoping process is to gather input on the
issues, concerns, possible alternatives, and potential significant
impacts to the quality of the human environment that FEMA should
consider in the EIS. Participants are anticipated to include, and are
not limited to, agencies (Federal, state, county, and local),

Tribes, public interest groups, nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, trade associations, and individual members of the public.
    As described under the DATES section of this notice, FEMA is
facilitating virtual and in-person meetings as well as a virtual
scoping room to accommodate and encourage public participation. At
these meetings, the public will have the opportunity to present
comments on the scope of the EIS. FEMA representatives will be
available to answer questions and provide additional information to
meeting attendees. In addition to providing comments at the public
scoping meetings, stakeholders may submit written comments as described
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments may be broad in nature or restricted
to specific areas of concern, but they should be directly relevant to
the NEPA process or potential environmental impacts as described in the
Comments section below.

Comments

    FEMA is seeking input on relevant information, studies, or analyses
of any kind concerning impacts that result from the proposed action or
alternatives. Specifically:
    1. Potential effects (adverse or beneficial) that the proposed
action could have on biological resources, including species and their
habitat.
    2. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on
physical resources and natural floodplain functions.
    3. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on
socioeconomics, including demographics, employment, economics,
minority, low-income populations, and Tribes, land use, zoning,
housing, commerce, transportation, community growth, and community
infrastructure.
    4. Other possible reasonable alternatives to the proposed action
that FEMA should consider, including additional or alternative
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that achieve the
performance standard of no-net loss of three key natural floodplain
functions.
    FEMA regulation, at 40 CFR 1502.17, requires that FEMA append to
the draft EIS or otherwise publish all comments received during the
scoping process that identifies alternatives, information, and analysis
for FEMA's consideration. FEMA respects each commentor's desire to
withhold sensitive information (such as the costs associated with
development in the floodplain) but, at the same time, recognizes that
one set of impacts that may be associated with the implementation of
the draft plan is the economic, social, and equity burden that
individuals, businesses, and communities may face.
    To promote informed decision-making, comments should be as specific
as possible and should provide as much detail as necessary to
meaningfully and fully inform FEMA of the commenter's position.
Comments should explain why the issues raised are important to the
consideration of potential environmental impacts and possible
alternatives to the proposed action as well as to economic, employment,
and other impacts affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., and 40 CFR 1501.9.

Deanne B. Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-04495 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39602-39603]
[DOCID:fr09jy10-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Reduce the Payments That CBOE Makes to CBOE Trading
Permit Holders That Participate in a Program Under Which CBOE
Subsidizes the Costs of Providing and/or Using Certain Order Routing
Functionalities

July 1, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2010, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE. 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

    CBOE proposes to reduce the payments that CBOE makes to CBOE
Trading Permit Holders that participate in a program under which CBOE
subsidizes the costs of providing and/or using certain order routing
functionalities. This rule change does not provide for any
modifications to the text of CBOE's rules. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at
the Commissions Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE 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, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBOE proposes to reduce the payments that CBOE makes to CBOE
Trading Permit Holders that participate in a program under which CBOE
subsidizes the costs of providing and/or using certain order routing
functionalities.\3\ If a Trading Permit Holder has elected not to have
CBOE perform certain marketing services on its behalf, the payment
would be reduced, with respect to orders routed to CBOE through a
participating Trading Permit Holder's system, from $0.05 per contract
to $0.04 per contract.\4\ If a member has elected to have CBOE perform
marketing services on its behalf, the payment with respect to such
orders would be reduced from $0.04 per contract to $0.03 per contract.
The Exchange intends to make the change effective commencing August 1,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The order router subsidy program is described in SR-CBOE-
2007-34 (see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55629 (April 13,
2007), 72 FR 19992 (April 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-34)) as
supplemented by SR-CBOE-2008-27 (see Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 57498 (March 14, 2008), 73 FR 55 (March 20, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-
27)).
    \4\ The marketing services that CBOE provides to Trading Permit
Holders electing to have CBOE provide such services are described on
page 5 of SR-CBOE-2007-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is not proposing any other changes in the program. CBOE stated
in SR-CBOE-2007-34, and affirmed in SR-CBOE-2008-27, that nothing about
the subsidy program would relieve any CBOE Trading Permit Holder that
is using an order routing functionality whose provider is participating
in the program from complying with its best execution obligations.\5\
Those statements remain true with respect to the program as CBOE is
proposing to revise it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SR-CBOE-2007-34, pp. 5-6; SR-CBOE-2008-27, p 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \6\, in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \7\ of the Act in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

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 purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-066 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-066. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-066 and should be
submitted on or before August 9, 2010.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16686 Filed 7-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P