[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 55084-55085]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the
Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of
49 CFR Part 236, as detailed below.

Docket Number FRA-2009-0082

    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. B.L. Sykes, Chief
Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30309.
    The Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) seeks approval of the
proposed discontinuance and removal of the control signals and power-
operated switches at CP-Rose, Milepost PT-234.4, on the NS Pittsburgh
Division, Pittsburgh Line, Relay Tracks 1, 2, and
3 Altoona, Pennsylvania.
    Four signals are to be removed and two power-operated switches to
be converted to hand-operation.
    The reason given for the proposed changes is to eliminate
facilities no longer needed for present day operation.
    Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an
application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the
protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the
party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be
furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
    FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral
hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is
accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present
his or her position by written statement, an application may be set for
public hearing.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.

    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0082) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at  http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 19, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-25605 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54813-54815]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0569]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Head of the Cuyahoga, U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race
National Championship, and Dragon Boat Festival, Cuyahoga River,
Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish a temporary safety zone on the
Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of the Cuyahoga River during the Head of the
Cuyahoga, the U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race International Championship,
and the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival. This safety zone is necessary
to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards
associated with rowing regattas.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on September 15, 2012, until
4 p.m. on September 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [USCG-2012-0569]. To view documents mentioned in
this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' You may visit the Docket Management Facility,
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterway Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On July 3, 2012, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Head of the Cuyahoga and U.S. Rowing
Masters Head Race National Championship, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH
in the Federal Register (77 FR 39453). We received 2 comments on the
proposed rule, although both were made by a single organization--the
Lake Carriers' Association (LCA). The LCA's comments are addressed
below. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. on September 15, 2012, the annual Head of
the Cuyahoga rowing regatta will take place on the Cuyahoga River in
Cleveland, OH. In conjunction with the HOTC, the Cleveland Dragon Boat
Festival will take place just north of the Detroit Superior Viaduct
Bridge on the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.
    Following the HOTC and the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival on the
15th of September, the U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National
Championship will take place on September 16th along the same portion
of the Cuyahoga River.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the HOTC, the
U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National Championship, and the Cleveland
Dragon Boat Festival rowing events

present significant hazards to public spectators and participants.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Final Rule

    As mentioned above, the Coast Guard received two comments from the
LCA in response to the NPRM published on July 3, 2012. One comment was
presented directly to the Coast Guard's Marine Safety Unit (MSU) in
Cleveland, OH on or about July 6, 2012. The other comment was submitted
online on July 24, 2012. The comment submitted online is available in
the docket. In sum, both LCA comments convey a concern about the
effects that this safety zone will have on its members ability to enter
the port and transit the Cuyahoga river. The LCA's online comment
expresses a general dissatisfaction with ``lengthy closures of
commercial waterways'' and a specific disagreement with this safety
zone's proposed ten (10) hour closure of the river. Particularly, the
LCA claims that the proposed ten (10) hour closure is one (1) hour
longer than required by the race sponsors.
    In response to the above comments, the Captain of the Port Buffalo
consulted with the event sponsor to reassess the necessary enforcement
times of this safety zone. Consequently, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has decided to shorten the length of the enforcement period.
Previously, the NPRM proposed that the safety zone would be enforced
from 6:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on September 15 and 16, 2012. Now, in
light of the LCA's concerns, this temporary final rule establishes an
enforcement period from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m. on those same dates.
    As discussed in the NPRM, this temporary safety zone is necessary
to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Head of the
Cuyahoga, U.S. Rowing Masters Head Race National Championship, and the
Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival. As mentioned above, the safety zone
will be effective and enforced from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m. on September 15
and 16, 2012.
    The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Cuyahoga River,
Cleveland, OH from a line drawn perpendicular from position
41[deg]28'32'' N, 081[deg]40'16'' W (NAD 83) just south of the
Interstate 490 bridge, north to the Detroit-Superior Viaduct bridge.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will
have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other
agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan
recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The
safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced
for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to
minimize its impact on navigable waters. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be
small entities: the owners of operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio
between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 15 and 16, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
safety zone will be enforce for only 9 hours each day for two days.
Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of the river,
traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of
the Captain of the Port. Before the enforcement of the zone, we will
issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0569 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0569  Safety Zone; Head of the Cuyahoga, U.S. Rowing
Masters Head Race National Championship, and Cleveland Dragon Boat
Festival, Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH from a line drawn perpendicular from
position 41[deg]28'32'' N, 081[deg]40'16'' W (NAD 83) just south of the
Interstate 490 bridge, north to the Detroit-Superior Viaduct bridge.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced on
September 15 and 16, 2012 from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 22, 2012.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2012-21921 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


25029 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2003 / Notices toxic action. Rhamnolipid biosurfactant is virtually non toxic to rats as demonstrated in the acute oral, dermal and inhalation studies submitted. The lack of mammalian toxicity supports the position that the physical action of rhamnolipid biosurfactants is a physical interaction with the zoospore membrane rather than a specific toxic mechanism that might be of concern. The chemical structures of the rhamnolipids suggest that there is little potential for chronic toxicity, teratogenicity or immunotoxicity in animals or humans as a result of exposure. The rhamnolipid molecules are simply glycolipids composed of a rhamnose sugar ring and a fatty acid tail. Individually these molecules are not considered toxic.

D. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure   i. Food. Dietary exposure from use of rhamnolipid biosurfactant, as proposed, is minimal. The use of rhamnolipid biosurfactant involves low levels of active ingredient applied to growing plants prior to harvest. Residues of rhamnolipid biosurfactant are not expected to be of toxicological concern. The rhamnolipid molecules are simply glycolipids composed of a rhamnose sugar ring and a fatty acid tail. Individually these molecules are not considered toxic. ii. Drinking water. Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of rhamnolipid biosurfactant in consumed drinking water would be unlikely. Rhamnolipid biosurfactant is a naturally occurring extra cellular substance that is produced by a microorganism known to exist in plant habitats; it is not known to grow or thrive in aquatic environments. Potential exposure to surface water would be negligible and exposure to drinking water ( well or ground water) would be impossible to measure. 2. Non dietary exposure. The potential for non dietary exposure to the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the proposed use sites are agricultural settings. However, non dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern. Personal protective equipment mitigates the potential for exposure to applicators and handlers of the proposed products, when used in agricultural settings.

E. Cumulative Exposure It is not expected that, when used as proposed, rhamnolipid biosurfactant would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. The rhamnolipid molecules are simply glycolipids composed of a rhamnose sugar ring and a fatty acid tail. Individually these molecules are not considered toxic.

F. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Acute toxicity studies have shown that rhamnolipid biosurfactant is not toxic, but is irritating via ocular exposure. Residues of rhamnolipid biosurfactant are not expected to be of toxicological concern. The rhamnolipid molecules are simply glycolipids composed of a rhamnose sugar ring and a fatty acid tail. Individually these molecules are not considered toxic. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general U. S. population from exposure to this active ingredient. 2. Infants and children. As mentioned above, residues of rhamnolipid biosurfactant are not expected to be of toxicological concern. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure to rhamnolipid biosurfactant from the proposed uses.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems To date there is no evidence to suggest that rhamnolipid biosurfactant functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.

H. Existing Tolerances There is no U. S. EPA tolerance for rhamnolipid biosurfactant.

I. International Tolerances A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level is not required for rhamnolipid biosurfactant. [ FR Doc. 03   11478 Filed 5   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7496   7]

Office of Environmental Information Draft Data Standard for Exchanging Permitting Information and Draft Data Standard for Federal Facility Identification AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of information availability and request for comments.

SUMMARY: Notice of availability is hereby given for a 45 day public comment period for the draft data standards: Draft Data Standard for Permitting Information; and the Draft Federal Facility Identification Data Standard. These draft standards consist of a list of data elements, definitions for these elements, formats, notes, and explanatory preamble language. The draft standards were developed through the partnership efforts of States, tribes, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency participating in the Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC). The EDSC convened one Action Team to develop a more comprehensive set of data elements to facilitate the sharing permit related information. The EDSC also formed an Action Team whose purpose was to reach consensus on standardized means of identifying facilities that are owned or operated, or were owned or operated, by the Federal government. The EPA and the EDSC invite comment on these standards from States, EPA, tribes, database managers in the public and private sectors, and the general public with interest in exchanging information concerning environmental permits and Federal facilities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit 1. A. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Draft Data Standard for Permitting Information, Tim Crawford, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, MC   2822T, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; Telephone ( 202) 566   1652. Draft Federal Facility Identification Data Standard, John Harman, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, MC   2822T, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; Telephone ( 202) 566 0748.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of These Draft Standards and Other Related Information ?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OEI   2003   0028. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 10 May 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09MYN1. SGM 09MYN1 25030 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2003 / Notices collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is ( 202) 566   1752.'' 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http: // www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may view and download the draft data standards and related explanatory material at the EDSC Web site at: http:// www. epa. gov/ edsc/ in the area of the site marked `` Data Standards.'' The draft data standards can also be viewed and downloaded at the EPA Environmental Data Registry ( EDR) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edr/ in the area of the site marked `` Data Standards''. Or for those with password access, at the WISER portion of the State/ EPA Web site at: http:// www. ecos. org/ wiser. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. A. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments, however, late comments may be considered if time permits. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OEI   2003   0028. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e mail) to oei. docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OEI   2003   0028. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. B. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send three copies of your comments to: Office of Environmental Information Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OEI   2003   0028.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 10 May 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09MYN1. SGM 09MYN1 25031 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2003 / Notices 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to the location provided in Unit I. A. 1, Attention Docket ID No. OEI   2003   0028. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. A. 1. 4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: ( 202) 566   1753, Attention Docket ID. No. OEI   2003   0028.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. Background: Environmental Data Standards Council Data sharing has become an increasingly important aspect of sound environmental management. States, Tribes, and EPA together face the critical challenge of sharing information among themselves and with their respective stakeholders and public. Fundamental to the seamless exchange of data are data standards. Data standards help improve the ability of partners ( internal and external) to exchange data efficiently and accurately, and also assist secondary users of data to understand, interpret, and use data appropriately. Recognition of the need for EPA, States and Tribes to develop and agree upon data standards for environmental information sharing has lead to the creation of the EDSC. Data standards are documented agreements on formats and definitions of data elements. The EDSC agrees to develop data standards only when there is a strong environmental management business reason that would benefit from establishing a consistency in information exchanged. These draft standards were delivered to the EDSC and approved for publication in the Federal Register for a 45 day public comment period. After the comment period announced in this Notice is complete, the EDSC and its Action Teams will review comments received and make appropriate modifications. The EDSC will then consider approval of these data standards as appropriate. EDSC approval does not bind an individual agency to using a standard. It will be up to the individual or programs to determine if, when, and how it might use a standard developed under the auspices of the EDSC. It is the intent of EPA to adopt and implement the consistent use of EDSC approved standards in its information systems and programs.

III. Background of Draft Data Standards A. Draft Data Standard Permit Related Information The EDSC is proposing to adopt a revision to the original Permitting Data Standard that was approved in April 2002. The original exchange standard for permit related information identified those data elements that are generally believed to be universally applicable to the identification and tracking of permits. While standard terms, definitions and formats for these types of data were needed, it was subsequently recognized that other information that is also common to multiple permitting programs exists and should be included in the same standard rather than duplicate similar information in separate data standards. As a result, the revised draft permitting data standard incorporates the original permitting data standard and extends the original scope to include information germane to multiple permitting programs. The draft Permitting Information Data Standard consists of data elements from the original Permit Data Standard organized by the categories or data blocks: Permit Identification, Permitted Feature, and Permit Administration. The revised draft standard also includes data elements under the data blocks: Facility/ Feature Characteristic, Control Methodology, Permit Condition, Reporting Condition, and Monitoring Condition. These additional data blocks provide data elements that can be used to describe the functional aspects of a facility or feature, as well as the constraints imposed by a permit including any monitoring or reporting requirements. The Action Team determined that additional permit related information will likely require program specific permit standards.

B. Draft Federal Facility Identification Data Standard The EDSC is proposing a Data Standard for the identification of facilities that are owned or operated, or were owned or operated, by the Federal Government. This draft Federal Facility Identification Data Standard builds on the Facility Identification Data Standard by focusing on identification issues for a specific type of facility. Several EPA offices have specific programs that focus on issues related to Federal facilities. Other EPA programs use naming conventions to identify Federal facilities separately from other types of facilities. The reporting forms for certain EPA programs include data elements that ask facilities to indicate whether they are owned or operated by the Federal government. Federal facilities are a diverse class, having functions that typically are different from other privately owned and operated facilities, thus potentially posing unique types of environmental concerns. Federal facilities conduct activities ranging from launching space shuttles to managing national parks. Tracking ownership or operation of a site over time is also important because certain former Federal sites can have legacy issues, such as spent munitions at former Department of Defense sites. The Draft Federal Facility Identification Data Standard includes the three categories of data elements, or data blocks: Federal Facility Identification Information; Federal Facility Ownership and/ or Operation Information; and Federal Facility Responsible Party Information. The Federal Facility Ownership and/ or Operation Information category provides a means of indicating the present ownership or operation of a facility that once was a Federal facility. An example is a local airport that formerly was an Air Force base. The Federal Facility Responsible Party Information category provides standardized naming conventions for the Federal agencies that own or operate a particular Federal facility and for the classification of the ownership/ operation of a Federal facility. An ancillary, but supportive goal, of the Draft Federal Facility Identification Data Standard is to serve as a guide for identifying facilities owned or operated by non Federal governments, such as States, tribes, counties or municipalities. States and tribes may choose to adopt the permissible values and follow similar naming conventions VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 10 May 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09MYN1. SGM 09MYN1 25032 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2003 / Notices when tracking non Federal government facilities.

IV. Future Revisions EDSC standards are periodically reviewed and revised as recommended by the EDSC or the stewards of the respective data standards. The most current standards will be posted at www. edsc. org and www. epa. gov/ edr.

V. Review of Draft Standards to Date These draft standards have received significant input through the representatives from EPA programs, States, and tribal organizations serving on the Action Teams and consulted though the development of the draft standard. EDSC members have also reviewed and recommended these draft standards for this public comment process.

Dated: April 24, 2003. Mark Luttner, Director, Office of Information Collection, Office of Environmental Information. [ FR Doc. 03   11631 Filed 5   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7495   9]

Determination of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With Applicable Federal Environmental Laws for the Period 2000 to 2002 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Based on documentation submitted by the U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ( WIPP), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or `` we'') determined that between 2000 and 2002, DOE operated the WIPP facility in compliance with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and permit requirements designated in Section 9( a)( 1) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended. The Secretary of Energy was notified of the determination via a letter from EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman dated May 2, 2003. We made this determination under the authority of Section 9 of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act ( WIPP LWA). ( Pub. L. Nos. 102   579 and 104   201.) Section 9( a)( 1) of the WIPP LWA requires that, as of the date of the enactment of the WIPP LWA, DOE shall comply with respect to WIPP with; regulations for the management and storage of radioactive waste ( 40 CFR part 191, subpart A); the Clean Air Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and all other applicable Federal laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment. Section 9( a)( 2) of the WIPP LWA requires DOE biennially to submit to EPA documentation of continued compliance with the laws, regulations, and permit requirements set forth in section 9( a)( 1). ( DOE must also submit similar documentation of compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act to the State of New Mexico.) Section 9( a)( 3) requires the Administrator of EPA to determine on a biennial basis, following the submittal of documentation of compliance by the Secretary of DOE, whether the WIPP is in compliance with the pertinent laws, regulations, and permit requirements, as set forth at section 9( a)( 1). We determined that for the period 2000 to 2002, the DOE submitted documentation showed continued compliance with 40 CFR Part 191, subpart A, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. With respect to other applicable Federal laws pertaining to public health and safety or the environment, as required by section 9( a)( 1)( G), DOE's documentation also indicates that DOE was in compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), and certain statutes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior. This determination is not directly related to, or a part of, our certification decision regarding whether the WIPP complies with EPA's disposal regulations for transuranic radioactive waste at 40 CFR part 191.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Stone; telephone number: ( 214) 665   7226; address: WIPP Project Officer, Mail Code 6PD   N, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. Materials related to this determination have been placed in docket A   98   49, item II   B2   14, located at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket, Attn: Docket A   98   49, EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460. The docket is open for public inspection from 8 a. m. until 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying services.

Dated: May 2, 2003. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. [ FR Doc. 03   11525 Filed 5   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection( s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission April 23, 2003. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection( s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104   13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning ( a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; ( b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ( c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ( d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments July 8, 2003. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) comments to Judy B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1   C804, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to Judith B. Herman@ fcc. gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Judy B.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 10 May 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09MYN1. SGM 09MYN1


[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 12171-12172]
[DOCID:fr15mr07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12617-001]

Fall Creek Hydro, LLC; Notice Dismissing Filing as Deficient

March 9, 2007.
    On January 10, 2007, Commission staff issued an order dismissing
Fall Creek Hydro, LLC's (Fall Creek) application for a second three-
year preliminary permit to study the proposed 4.7-megawattt Fall Creek
Hydroelectric Project No. 12617, to be located at the existing U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Fall Creek Dam, on Fall Creek in Lane
County, Oregon. On February 8, 2007, Fall Creek filed a timely request
for rehearing, seeking reinstatement of its application.
    Fall Creek's rehearing request is deficient because it fails to
include a Statement of Issues section separate from its arguments, as
required by Rule 713 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure.\1\ Rule 713(c)(2) requires that a rehearing request must
include a separate section entitled ``Statement of Issues'' listing
each issue presented to the Commission in a separately enumerated
paragraph that includes representative Commission and court precedent
on which the participant is relying.\2\ Under Rule 713, any issue not
so listed will be deemed waived. Accordingly, Fall Creek's rehearing
request is dismissed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.713(c)(2) (2006). See Revision of Rules of
Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue Identification, Order No.
663, 70 FR 55,723 (September 23, 2005), FERC Statutes and
Regulations ] 31,193 (2005). See also, Order 663-A, effective March
23, 2006, which amended Order 663 to limit its applicability to
rehearing requests. Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure
Regarding Issue Identification, Order No. 663-A, 71 FR 14,640 (March
23, 2006), FERC Statutes and Regulations ] 31,211 (2006).
    \2\ As explained in Order No. 663, the purpose of this
requirement is to benefit all participants in a proceeding by
ensuring that the filer, the Commission, and all other participants
understand the issues raised by the filer, and to enable the
Commission to respond to these issues. Having a clearly articulated
Statement of Issues ensures that issues are properly raised before
the Commission and avoids the waste of time and resources involved
in litigating appeals regarding which the courts of appeals lack
jurisdiction because the issues on appeal were not clearly
identified before the Commission. See Order No. 663 at P 3-4.
    \3\ See, e.g., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 116 FERC ]
61,218 (2006); and Duke Power Company, LLC, 116 FERC ] 61,171
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, Fall Creek's arguments on rehearing are without
merit. The purpose of a preliminary permit is to maintain priority of
application for a license during the term of the permit while the
permittee conducts investigations and secures data necessary to
determine the feasibility of the proposed project and, if the project
is found to be feasible, prepares an acceptable development
application. While an applicant is not precluded from seeking and
obtaining a successive preliminary permit for the same site, it must
demonstrate that, under the prior permit, it pursued the proposal in
good faith and with due diligence.\4\ A permittee seeking a successive
permit is therefore required to take certain minimal steps, including
filing six-month progress reports and consulting with the appropriate
federal and state resource agencies.\5\
    In October 2002, Commission staff granted Fall Creek a three-year
preliminary permit to study its proposed project.\6\ Upon expiration of
the first permit term, Fall Creek immediately filed its application for
a second permit. Commission staff dismissed Fall Creek's application
for a successive permit, concluding that Fall Creek failed to prosecute
diligently the requirements of its previous permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Little Horn Energy Wyoming, Inc., 58 FERC ] 61,132
(1992).
    \5\ See Burke Dam Hydro Associates, 47 FERC ] 61,449 (1989).
    \6\ 101 FERC ] 62,038 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On rehearing, Fall Creek contends that it has made substantial
progress in analyzing the proposed project's feasibility and completing
the Pre-

application Document (PAD), \7\ a step in the license application
process.\8\ As evidence of its ``substantial progress'' and due
diligence, Fall Creek states that it made two site visits (November
2002 and July 2003) and held two meetings (May 2006 and January 2007).
It also describes nine ``consultations'' made in preparation of its
PAD, all but one of which occurred in a ten-day period after the
dismissal of its permit application.\9\ Finally it cites to 52
documents, publications, and Web sites that it reviewed in preparing
its PAD. These efforts are too little, too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The purpose of a PAD under the Commission's Integrated
Licensing Process is to provide detailed information about a
proposed project to enable interested entities to identify issues,
develop study requests and study plans, and prepare documents
analyzing any license application that may be filed. See 18 CFR 5.6
(2006).
    \8\ Fall Creek later filed its PAD and a notice of intent to
file a license application in a new proceeding (docketed Project No.
12778-000) on February 16, 2007, eight days after the filing of its
request for rehearing. Finding the PAD to be deficient, partially
because of Fall Creek's failure to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, staff by
letter dated February 28, 2007, gave Fall Creek 75 days to file an
updated PAD or an addendum to the originally filed PAD.
    \9\ The Corps is the only consulted federal entity and the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife the only consulted resource
agency.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4716 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 65795-65796]
[DOCID:fr09no06-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-18-000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

November 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 30, 2006, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (Panhandle), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967,
filed in Docket No. CP07-18-000, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205 and 157.211(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act, and Panhandle's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-83-000, to construct, own
and operate certain facilities to be located in Wayne County, Michigan,
all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the Web at http://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. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,

(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, Panhandle proposed facilities will consist of a 16-
inch by 22-inch tee and 16-inch tap valve on its existing Edgerton 22-
inch Line (No. 41-08-001-3000) and approximately 390 feet of 16-inch
connecting pipeline between the downstream flange of Panhandle's
proposed tap to the upstream flange of the delivery measurement
station. The proposed facility will establish a new point of

interconnection with Severstal North America, Inc.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
William W. Grygar, Vice President, Rates and Regulatory Affairs,
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston,
Texas 77056 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the
time allowed therefore, 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 shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-18925 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 60925-60927]
[DOCID:fr26oc07-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56684; File No. SR-OCC-2007-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Options on Leveraged ETF Shares

October 22, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 4, 2007, The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared
primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons
and to grant accelerated approval of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

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

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

    The proposed rule change would allow OCC to clear and settle
options on exchange traded fund (``ETF'') shares generally known as
``Leveraged ETF Shares.''

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to accommodate the
introduction of options on ETF shares that represent interests in
entities making a broad array of investments in order to provide
investment returns that are equivalent to (a) a multiple of the
percentage return of a specific stock index (``Multiple Fund Shares''
or ``Index Multiple ETFs'') or (b) a multiple of the inverse percentage
return of a specific stock index (``Inverse Fund Shares'' or ``Index
Inverse ETFs'') (Multiple Fund Shares, Index Multiple ETFs, Inverse
Fund Shares, and Index Inverse ETFs are collectively ``Leveraged ETF
Shares'').\3\ According to the proposed rule changes filed by the
exchanges seeking to list and trade Leveraged ETF Shares, the ETF
issuing the Leveraged ETF Shares may make a variety of exchange-traded
and over-the-counter investments, including stock index futures
contracts, options on futures, options on securities, options on
indexes, caps on stock, collars on stock, floors on stock, swap
agreements, forward contracts, repurchase agreements, and reverse
repurchase agreements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ProShares Ultra Funds, which trades on the American
Stock Exchange (``Amex''), is an example of a Multiple Fund Share or
Index Multiple ETF. The Short Funds and the UltraShort Funds, which
also trade on Amex, are examples of Inverse Fund Shares Index
Inverse ETFs.
    \4\ File Nos. SR-Amex-2007-35 and SR-ISE-2007-87. The Commission
recently issued an order granting approval of SR-Amex-2007-35 that
allows Amex to list and trade options on Multiple Fund Shares and on
Inverse Fund Shares. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56650
(October 12, 2007), 72 FR 59123 (October 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the definition of ``fund share'' in Article I, Section 1
of OCC's By-Laws lists the various underlying investments that may be
made by the ETF issuing the fund share. In order to avoid creating an
ever-lengthening list of possible investments that may prove to be non-
exhaustive, OCC proposes to amend the definition of ``fund share'' to
state that the term means ``a publicly traded security (as defined in
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended)
that represents an interest in a trust, investment company, commodity
pool, or similar entity holding and/or trading in one or more
investments.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission previously approved a supplement to the
``options disclosure document'' defining ``fund shares'' in a
similar manner. Part III of the May 2007 Supplement to
Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options provides that the
term ``fund shares'' includes interests in exchange-traded funds and
other entities holding or trading in one or more types of
investments. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55702 (May 3,
2007), 72 FR 26671 (May 10, 2007) (File No. SR-ODD-2007-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Act because it (1) promotes the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of transactions in options on Leveraged ETF
Shares by applying the same basic rules and procedures to such options
as are applied to options on other equity interests, (2) fosters
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, (3) removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and (4) protects
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with the rules of OCC, including any rule proposed to be
amended.

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\6\ By
amending OCC's By-Laws so that OCC may clear and settle options on
Leveraged ETF Shares that are to be listed and traded on Amex, the
proposed rule change should help promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of such securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule
prior to the thirtieth day after publication of the notice of the
filing. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after the publication of notice
because such approval will allow Amex to commence trading of options on
Leveraged ETF Shares without any unnecessary delay.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Supra note 4. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-OCC-2007-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-12. 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 inspection and copying 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 OCC. 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-OCC-2007-12 and should be submitted on
or before November 16, 2007.

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2007-12) be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21179 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 65559-65561]
[DOCID:fr08no06-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54685; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-95]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Include an Additional 32 Securities in the Current Exchange Pilot
Operating in Conjunction With the Implementation of Hybrid Market Phase
3

November 1, 2006.
    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 October 26, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. The NYSE filed
the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission.\5\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The NYSE has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay. See Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to include an additional 32 securities to
participate in the Exchange's current pilot (``Pilot'') program which
puts into operation certain rule changes pending before the Commission
to coincide with the Exchange's implementation of NYSE HYBRID
MARKET\SM\ (``Hybrid Market'') \6\ Phase 3. The additional securities
are identified in Exhibit 3 to the filing. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site (http://www.nyse.com),

at the principal office of the NYSE and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Hybrid Market was approved on March 22, 2006. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR
16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposal. 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
    On October 5, 2006 the Commission approved an Exchange Pilot \7\
to, among other things, put into operation certain proposed
modifications to Exchange

Rules that are currently pending \8\ before the Commission to coincide
with the Exchange's implementation of the Hybrid Market Phase 3. The
Pilot commenced on October 6, 2006 \9\ and is scheduled to terminate on
the close of business November 30, 2006.\10\ The Pilot applies to a
group of securities, known as Phase 3 Pilot securities (``Pilot
securities'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54578, 71 FR 60216
(October 12, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-82). See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54610 (October 16, 2006), 71 FR 62142 (October 23,
2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-84) (amending the Pilot).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54520 (September 27,
2006), 71 FR 57590 (September 29, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-65) (proposing
to amend several Exchange Rules to clarify certain definitions and
systemic processes) (``Omnibus Filing''); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54504 (September 26, 2006), 71 FR 57011 (September 28,
2006) (SR-NYSE 2006-76) (proposing to amend the specialist
stabilization requirements set forth in Exchange Rule 104.10). In
addition, in SR-NYSE-2006-73, filed on September 13, 2006, and
Amendment No. 1 thereto (filed on October 13, 2006), the Exchange
proposes to amend Exchange Rule 127 which governs the execution of a
block cross transaction at a price outside the prevailing NYSE
quotation.
    \9\ The changes related to stop orders and stop limit orders
proposed in the Omnibus Filing were implemented on October 16, 2006
in order to give customers and member organizations sufficient time
to make any changes necessary as a result of the elimination of stop
limit orders.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54675 (October 31,
2006).
    \11\ Phase 3 Pilot Securities will also be posted on the
Exchange's Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is currently in the process of phasing in the
securities operating under the Pilot. As expected, the Pilot is
operating with minimal problems and the benefits are proving
invaluable. The Pilot is providing the Exchange with the opportunity to
identify and address any system problems. Moreover, the Exchange has
the ability to identify and incorporate beneficial system changes that
become apparent as a result of usage in real time and under real market
conditions.
    The Exchange further has the ability to have real time user
interface that is proving very useful to the Exchange. In addition to
its usefulness to the Exchange, the Pilot is providing the current
users with essential practical experience with the new systems and
processes in a well-modulated way, in real time and under real market
conditions that cannot be completely replicated in the mock-trading
environment.
    The Exchange therefore seeks through this filing to include an
additional 32 securities for participation in the Pilot. Among the
securities the Exchange seeks to add to the Pilot is a security that
was not listed on the Exchange when the Exchange initially sought
approval for the Pilot. Specifically, the security traded under the
symbol SAI was an initial public offering that occurred on October 13,
2006 subsequent to the Exchange's request to operate the Pilot and thus
was not available to be included at that time.
    The Exchange believes that allowing additional securities to
participate in the Pilot will increase the number of users that may
benefit from the enhanced educational and supervisory training
experience that the Pilot provides. Specialist firms will be able to
provide an increased number of individual specialists with the
educational opportunity of real time experience under real market
conditions that cannot be completely replicated in the mock-trading
environment. It will further provide an increased number of the
specialists firms' supervisory personnel with additional opportunities
for supervisory training in real time and under real market conditions.
    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the inclusion of additional
securities will only further the Exchange's ability to identify and
address any system problems and to identify and incorporate beneficial
system changes while providing the new users with real time education.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ that a
registered national securities exchange have rules designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \13\ in that it seeks to assure
economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. The
Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay period for this ``non-controversial'' proposal.
    The Commission has determined to waive the 30-day operative
delay.\14\ The Exchange states that this waiver will allow the Exchange
to immediately implement this proposal, which will allow specialist
firms to provide more of their specialists and supervisory personnel
with the educational opportunity of real-time experience under real
market conditions under the Pilot program. Inclusion of additional
securities in the Pilot may allow the Exchange to identify and correct
any system problems \15\ and formulate any necessary corrective
changes. Therefore, the Commission finds that it is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest that the proposed rule
change become effective and operative upon filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ The Exchange states that, currently, the Pilot is operating
with minimal problems.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSE-2006-95 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-95. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at NYSE's
Office of the Secretary.
    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-NYSE-2006-95
and should be submitted on or before November 29, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18791 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P