[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47648-47650]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0032]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tropical Storm Isaias, Coast Guard Maryland-National
Capital Region Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters within the Coast Guard Maryland-National Capital
Region Captain of the Port Zone. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by the possible landfall of Tropical Storm Isaias. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from August 6, 2020
until 11:59 p.m. on August 9, 2020, unless terminated sooner by the
Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. For the purposes
of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on August 4,
2020 until August 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0032 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-
2674, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. Immediate action is required by the Coast Guard
due to the potential safety hazards vessels in these waterways present
to life, property and the environment during a tropical storm. We must
establish this safety zone by August 4, 2020, to ensure that the rule
is in place in advance of Tropical Storm Isaias.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to restrict vessel traffic to
protect life, property and the environment and respond to the potential
safety hazards associated with the nature and path of Tropical Storm
Isaias.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). Tropical Storm Isaias continues to
track toward the mid-Atlantic region, with a most probable path
inclusive of the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with
the destructive force associated with a tropical storm necessitates
establishment of a temporary safety zone to protect the safety of life
and property on navigable waters starting August 4, 2020, will be a
safety concern for anyone within the COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region Zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
during the weather event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on August 4,
2020, until 11:59 p.m. on August 9, 2020, unless sooner terminated by
the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters within the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.25-15. The duration of
the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters due to the expected impact of
Tropical Storm Isaias. Except for vessels already at berth, mooring, or
anchor, all vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is
implemented are to depart the zone. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. To seek permission to enter,
vessels and persons may contact the COTP or the COTP's representative
by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel
16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the duration of
the safety zone. The effect of this regulation will not be significant
due to the limited time that will be regulated (less than a week) and
that vessel traffic will be allowed to transit through the zone once
the tropical storm has passed, when it

has been determined safe to do so, and with the permission of the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969(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 a
safety zone that will prohibit entry within the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region Zone for six days, as described in 33 CFR 3.25-15, due
to the expected impact of Tropical Storm Isaias. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

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

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: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0032 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0032  Safety Zone; Tropical Storm Isaias, Coast Guard
Maryland-National Capital Region Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital
Region Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.25-1.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Except for vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor, all
vessels underway within this safety zone on August 4, 2020, are to
depart the zone.
    (3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply

with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 12:01
a.m. on August 4, 2020, until 11:59 p.m. on August 9, 2020, unless
sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital
Region.

    Dated: August 3, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-17294 Filed 8-4-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Paul Augustine, EPA/ CAMD From: Barry Galef and Bansari Saha, ICF Consulting Subject: Alternative SO2 Allowance Allocation Approaches under CAIR Date: March 9, 2005 This memorandum responds to EPA's request for a short write up comparing SO2 allowance allocation outcomes under the existing methodology in CAIR with other allocation mechanisms. The existing allocation mechanism is based on Title IV allocations, using fuel input data from the 1980s. Commenters to the CAIR rulemaking have raised questions regarding the reasonableness of using such an old baseline as opposed to more recent baseline heat input data. This memorandum argues that the final market outcomes based on marginal cost considerations in IPM will not be affected by using more recent heat input data to allocate the allowances.

The effects of using more recent baseline heat input data can be approached from two related perspectives. First, what are the theoretical implications of changing the existing SO2 allowance allocation mechanism under CAIR to a different input based allocation mechanism in which EPA uses more recent heat input data? Second, how would EPA's analysis using IPM change in practice, in response to different allocation mechanisms?

The answer to the first question depends on whether we are interested in the distribution of profits and losses resulting from CAIR, or only in the physical effects of the program. The choice of the baseline year will certainly affect the initial allocation of allowances, in terms of the number of allowances allocated to different plants. Although the initial allocation mechanism does not help or hurt states and industries in the aggregate, any allocation creates winners and losers, and changing the initial allocation mechanism will change the identities of those winners and losers. Allowances have significant value and the initial allocation determines who gets these instruments of value.

In theory, though, changing the baseline will have virtually no real world effects other than the distribution of winners and losers, so long as the regulatory program uses a permanent allowance allocation system and efficient market mechanisms. 1 This conclusion follows from the fact that allowances have intrinsic value, and their holders know that an allowance's value is determined by its value to potential buyers, not by its original holder. The value to potential buyers, in turn, is determined by the allowance's ability to save its purchaser the cost of reducing emissions by a given amount. Thus, assuming minimal transaction costs in trading allowances and complete information flow in the allowance market, allowances will be traded until marginal abatement costs are virtually equalized, and the same final distribution of 1 A permanent allocation system is one where allowances are allocated based on a fixed or constant formula and the initial allocation never changes ( or changes in ways that are specified in advance   such as a fixed reduction every year, so as not to induce any strategic behavior from affected entities). DRAFT CAIR Allowance Allocation allowances will result regardless of the initial allocation. If the market reaches the same final distribution of allowances, it also reaches the same control decisions, emissions, prices, and total costs, independent of the allocation mechanism.

In practice, EPA analyzes the costs and other effects of cap and trade programs like CAIR using IPM. IPM's analytical approach is to find the most efficient way to meet a given emission cap, and implicitly assumes that the market ( acting through a well functioning allowance trading system) will ensure that the cap is indeed met efficiently. Because IPM implicitly assumes that the allowance trading mechanism works well enough to direct the allowances to the right users, it does not use any information on allowances, and is therefore insensitive to the initial allowance allocation. Essentially, IPM treats the allocation as a sunk cost ( or sunk benefit) that does not affect decisions at the margin. Hence, changing the baseline for allocating allowances will not affect IPM results on compliance decisions, wholesale electricity prices, or allowance prices, or net compliance costs.

Thus, as long as the allowances are allocated based on a permanent allocation mechanism, changing the baseline year for the heat input data used to calculate the initial allocations will not significantly alter the market outcomes such as electricity prices, compliance decisions, or retirements, under the assumption of an efficient trading system with a free flow of market information. Though differences in the allocation baseline could affect the distribution of gains and losses, it will not affect IPM results because the model determines the solutions related to marginal cost calculations under an efficient trading system.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48169-48171]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0557]

Advancing Regulatory Science for Highly Multiplexed Microbiology/
Medical Countermeasure Devices; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public meeting: ``Advancing Regulatory Science for Highly Multiplexed
Microbiology/Medical Countermeasure Devices.'' The purpose of the
public meeting is to discuss performance evaluation of highly
multiplexed microbiology/medical countermeasure (MCM) devices, their
clinical application and public health/clinical needs, and quality
criteria for establishing the accuracy of reference databases. These
considerations are essential to establish the safety and effectiveness
of highly multiplexed devices when used for the clinical diagnosis of
infectious diseases from a human specimen.
    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on October 13, 2011,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31,

rm. 1503 (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. For parking
and security information, please visit the following Web site: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. The public meeting will also
be available to be viewed online via webcast.
    Contact Person: Raquel Peat, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 5561, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: If you wish to
attend or view the webcast of the public meeting, you must register
online at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm (select the appropriate meeting from
the list).
    Provide complete contact information for each attendee, including
name, title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Registration
requests should be received by September 13, 2011.
    If you wish to make an oral presentation during the open comment
session at the meeting, you must indicate this at the time of
registration. FDA has included general discussion topics for comment in
section III of this document, Topics for Input. You should also
identify which discussion topic you wish to address in your
presentation. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to speak.
Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to
consolidate or coordinate their presentations and to request time for a
joint presentation. FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to
each presenter and the approximate time that each oral presentation is
scheduled to begin. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is
greater than what can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled
open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the
speakers for the scheduled open comment session.
    Registration is free and will be on a first-come, first-served
basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based
on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once their
registration has been accepted. Onsite registration on the day of the
public meeting will be provided on a space-available basis beginning at
7 a.m. Non-U.S. citizens are subject to additional security screening,
and they should register as soon as possible.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4321,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting: There will be a
registration process for the webcast, and it will be on a first-come,
first-served basis (maximum capacity: 900). If you have never attended
a Connect Pro meeting before, test your connection at: https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get
a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit: http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified the Web site
addresses in this document, but FDA is not responsible for any
subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.)
    Comments: In advance of the meeting, FDA will place its proposed
evaluation approach to assess the performance of highly multiplexed
microbiology/MCM devices on file in the public docket (docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document) and will post it at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. The deadline for submitting comments to be presented at
this public meeting is September 13, 2011 (see section III of this
document.)
    Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons
may submit either electronic or written comments on any discussion
topic(s) to the open docket. The deadline for submitting comments to
the docket is September 13, 2011. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. In addition, if responding to specific
topics as outlined in section III of this document, please identify the
topic you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Highly multiplexed devices for the diagnosis of infectious
diseases, including those caused by MCM-related pathogens, are a new
generation of diagnostic products designed to simultaneously identify
and differentiate a large number of pathogens from a single clinical
specimen. This involves the testing of multiple targets through a
common process of sample preparation, amplification and/or detection,
and result interpretation. The identification of the organism is often
based on sequence information compared to reference databases created
either by the device manufacturer or otherwise publicly available.
    These diagnostic devices present several advantages, such as
identifying potential disease etiology in situations where many
different pathogens share a common clinical manifestation and the
simultaneous detection of co-infections. However, establishing and
validating the performance of these devices to make informed clinical
and public health decisions poses significant scientific challenges.
This public meeting is to discuss the performance evaluation of highly
multiplexed microbiology/MCM device, their clinical application and
public health/clinical needs and quality criteria for establishing the
accuracy of reference databases. These considerations are essential to
establish the safety and effectiveness of highly multiplexed devices
when used for the clinical diagnosis of infectious diseases from a
human specimen.
    FDA is holding this public meeting to obtain input from academia,
government, industry, clinical laboratories, and other stakeholders on
the performance evaluation approach to be proposed by FDA, which
includes validation methods, reference panels, and bioinformatic
concepts needed to address the clinical and analytical performance
requirements for highly multiplexed microbiology/MCM devices. The
ultimate goal is to advance regulatory science for highly multiplexed
devices used in pathogen detection in order to ensure their safety and
effectiveness and thereby provide potential clinical and public health
benefits.

II. Meeting Overview

    The public meeting will consist of presentations providing
background on current and anticipated uses for highly multiplexed
microbiology devices that may contain MCM analytes, the performance
evaluation approach

proposed by FDA, and information on reference databases; an open public
comment session; and an open discussion on selected topics raised by
the presentations (see section III of this document.) During the
discussions, the participants will not be asked to develop consensus
opinions but rather to provide their individual perspectives.
    Additional information, including a meeting agenda, will be
available on the Internet, immediately after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. The evaluation approach proposed by
FDA is expected to be available at a later date. This information will
be placed on file in the public docket (docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document), which is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This information will also be available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm
(select the appropriate meeting from the list).

III. Topics for Input

    FDA will seek input on its proposed performance evaluation
approach, which will include the following topics:
    1. Clinical Application of Highly Multiplexed Microbiology Devices:
Their clinical application and public health/clinical needs; inclusion
of MCM-related pathogens that are expected to be rarely present in the
tested specimens; the composition of clinically relevant panels of
pathogens; the interpretation of the test results taking into
consideration the possible detection of microorganisms that are not
clinically relevant, and what is known and unknown about co-infections.
    2. Device Evaluation: How to evaluate the analytical and clinical
performance of highly multiplexed microbiology devices; approaches to
device validation when positive specimens are not easily available,
which is the case for many MCM pathogens; sufficiency, feasibility, and
practicality of the proposed FDA evaluation approach to establish
device performance.
    3. Reference Databases: Quality criteria for establishing the
accuracy of reference databases; methods for curating, maintaining, and
updating these databases; what is the current practice for creating and
maintaining reference databases.

IV. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food
and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., rm. 1050,
Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: August 2, 2011.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-19996 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 74757-74759]
[DOCID:fr01de10-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63372; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-162]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to Price Improvement (PIXL) Fees

 November 24, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 18, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend and supersede its pricing applicable
to members utilizing the Exchange's price improvement mechanism known
as Price Improvement XL or (PIXL[supreg]).
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after November 22, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's 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, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend and supersede
the current fees assessed for orders known as PIXL Orders \3\ and
Initiating Orders.\4\ The Exchange intends to place a cap on the
maximum fee that would be assessed to market participants for utilizing
the price improvement mechanism. The Exchange also proposes to amend
the fee assessed for Initiating Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A member may electronically submit for execution an order it
represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-dealer,
or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal interest or
against any other order (except as provided in sub-paragraph
(n)(i)(E) below) it represents as agent (``Initiating Order'')
provided it submits the PIXL order for electronic execution into the
PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 1080. See Exchange Rule
1080(n).
    \4\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses PIXL fees on Customers, Directed
Participants,\5\ Specialists,\6\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQT''),\7\
Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQT''),\8\ Firms and Broker-Dealers.
All options traded on the Exchange are eligible for PIXL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 1080(l), ``* * * The term `Directed
Specialist, RSQT, or SQT' means a specialist, RSQT, or SQT that
receives a Directed Order.'' A Directed Participant has a higher
quoting requirement as compared with a specialist, SQT or RSQT who
is not acting as a Directed Participant. See Exchange Rule 1014.
    \6\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \7\ A Streaming Quote Trader is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A) as an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned.
    \8\ A Remote Streaming Quote Trader is defined Exchange Rule in
1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange assesses a fee of $0.05 per contract when an
Initiating Order executes against a PIXL Order in the symbols listed in
Section I, the Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols \9\ (known as ``Select Symbols''), and the symbols
defined in Section II \10\ (``Section II

Symbols''). The Exchange assesses the fees listed in Section II of the
Fee Schedule for the PIXL Order when the PIXL Order trades against the
Initiating Order in Section II Symbols and the Select Symbols. For
example, a member or member organization is assessed $0.00 for Customer
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Fees and Rebates for Adding and Removing Liquidity in
Select Symbols are listed in Section I of the Fee Schedule.
    \10\ An equity option includes exchange-traded fund share
(``ETF''), Holding Company Depositary Receipt (``HOLDR''), Russell
2000(R) Index (the ``Full Value Russell Index'' or ``RUT''), options
on the one-tenth value Russell 2000[supreg] Index (the ``Reduced
Value Russell Index'' or ``RMN''), options on the Nasdaq 100 Index
traded under the symbol NDX (``NDX''), options on the one-tenth
value of the Nasdaq 100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (``MNX'')
and the KBW Bank Index (``BKX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the symbols assessed according to Section III \11\ of the Fee
Schedule, titled Sector Index Options Fees and U.S Dollar-Settled
Foreign Currency (``WCO'') Options Fees, the transaction fees described
in Section III apply to both the Initiating Order and the PIXL Order
for all executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The symbols assessed fees according to Section III are BKX,
FPX, HGX, OSX, SOX, UTY, and XAU (``Sector Index Options'') and U.S.
Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Options (``WCOs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select Symbols: Section I
    With respect to executions in Select Symbols, where the PIXL Order
is not trading against the Initiating Order, the PIXL Order is assessed
the Fee for Removing Liquidity when that order is executed against a
resting contra-side order or quote that was present upon initial
receipt of the PIXL Order. The resting contra-side order or quote
receives the Rebate for Adding Liquidity. Additionally, the PIXL Order
receives the Rebate for Adding Liquidity when that order is executed
against contra-side order(s) that respond to the PIXL auction broadcast
message as well as when executed against contra-side quotes and
unrelated orders on the PHLX book that arrived after the PIXL auction
was initiated. The PIXL auction responders, contra-side order(s) and
quote(s) is/are assessed the Fee for Removing Liquidity.
    For the symbols assessed according to Section III of the Fee
Schedule, titled Sector Index Options Fees and U.S Dollar-Settled
Foreign Currency (``WCO'') Options Fees, the transaction fees described
in Section III apply to both the Initiating Order and the PIXL Order
for all executions.
Equity Options: Section II
    With respect to executions in Section II Equity Options,\12\ the
PIXL Order is assessed the appropriate Equity Option Fee in Section II
of the Fee Schedule. The contra-side order or quote is assessed the
appropriate Equity Option Fee listed on the Fee Schedule as well. All
other Equity Options Fees in Section II apply as appropriate, including
but not limited to Payment for Order Flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This includes all Symbols that are not specifically Select
Symbols as listed in Section I of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its PIXL fees to assess $0.07
per contract for each Initiating Order and to add language to the Fee
Schedule to indicate that certain fees will be limited to a maximum of
$0.32 per contract for PIXL Orders. Specifically, for options overlying
the Select Symbols defined in Section I and Equity Options defined in
Section II of the Fee Schedule, the maximum fee any participant will
pay will be $0.32 per contract. The Exchange believes that these fees
should encourage the initiation of price improvement auctions.
    The Exchange is also adding ``BKX'' to the text of Section IV of
the Fee Schedule, as BKX was added to the equity options fees.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63252 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69486 (November 12, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-150) (a rule
change to add the KBW Bank Index (``BKX'') to the Equity Option
Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after November 22, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \15\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is lowering prices to provide incentives for its
members to seek price improvement for customer orders. Offering lower
prices to members that initiate a price improvement opportunity is
sound public policy and market structure. Any order that is assessed
the lower fee will, by definition, have received the opportunity for an
execution at a price superior to the market. The Exchange believes that
the fee proposal is both equitable and reasonable for this and the
reasons listed hereafter.
    The proposed fees are consistent with the price differentials that
exist today at most option exchanges. For example, the highest
transaction fee differential proposed by the Exchange is the same
transaction fee differential that currently exists between broker-
dealers that that manually facilitate their customer order flow (known
as firm facilitation) and the transaction fees charged to other broker-
dealers by the both NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') \16\ and NYSE Amex
LLC (``NYSE Amex'').17 18 [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62670 (August 9,
2010), 75 FR 49546 (August 13, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-77). See also
NYSE Arca's Fee Schedule. NYSE Arca assesses no fee for firm
facilitation-manual trades and a $0.25 per contract fee for all
other firm and broker-dealer manual trades.
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50012 (August 9,
2010), 75 FR 50012 (August 16, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-81). See also
NYSE Amex's Fee Schedule. NYSE Amex assesses no fee for firm
facilitation-manual trades and a $0.25 per contract fee for all
other firm and broker-dealer manual trades.
    \18\ The Exchange also assesses similar firm facilitation fees.
See Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the fees and rebates assessed by the Exchange are
similar, and in some cases less than, the fees and rebates assessed by
the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') \19\ and the
International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') \20\ for orders executed in
a price improvement mechanism. For example a BOX participant could be
assessed total fees of $0.35 per contract as the price improvement
period (``PIP'') initiator and receive a rebate for their customer PIP
order of $0.25 per contract (in this example the net fee charged the
BOX participant would be $0.10), whereas the PIP responder could be
assessed a fee of $0.50 per contract. This is a differential of $0.40
per contract between two BOX participants for participating in the PIP
auction, which is equal to or less than the differentials that exist in
the Exchange's proposal. With respect to ISE, the Exchange pays a
rebate for certain PIXL executions, which is similar to the $0.15
rebate ISE pays for its price improvement mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 62632 (August
3, 2010), 75 FR 47869 (August 3, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-049).
    \20\ See the ISE schedule of fee as of August 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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)(ii) of the Act.\21\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2010-162 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-Phlx-2010-162. 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,\22\ 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-
Phlx-2010-162 and should be submitted on or before December 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30227 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59027-59029]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 3a-4, OMB Control No. 3235-0459, SEC File No. 270-401.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments

on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans
to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 3a-4 (17 CFR 270.3a-4) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (``Investment Company Act'' or ``Act'') provides a
nonexclusive safe harbor from the definition of investment company
under the Act for certain investment advisory programs. These programs,
which include ``wrap fee'' and ``mutual fund wrap'' programs, generally
are designed to provide professional portfolio management services to
clients who are investing less than the minimum usually required by
portfolio managers but more than the minimum account size of most
mutual funds. Under wrap fee and similar programs, a client's account
is typically managed on a discretionary basis according to pre-selected
investment objectives. Clients with similar investment objectives often
receive the same investment advice and may hold the same or
substantially similar securities in their accounts. Some of these
investment advisory programs may meet the definition of investment
company under the Act because of the similarity of account management.
    In 1997, the Commission adopted rule 3a-4, which clarifies that
programs organized and operated in a manner consistent with the
conditions of rule 3a-4 are not required to register under the
Investment Company Act or comply with the Act's requirements.\1\ These
programs differ from investment companies because, among other things,
they provide individualized investment advice to the client. The rule's
provisions have the effect of ensuring that clients in a program
relying on the rule receive advice tailored to the client's needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Status of Investment Advisory Programs Under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, Investment Company Act Release No. 22579 (Mar.
24, 1997) (62 FR 15098 (Mar. 31,1997)) (``Adopting Release''). In
addition, there are no registration requirements under section 5 of
the Securities Act of 1933 for these programs. See 17 CFR 270.3a-4,
introductory note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3a-4 provides that each client's account must be managed on
the basis of the client's financial situation and investment objectives
and consistent with any reasonable restrictions the client imposes on
managing the account. When an account is opened, the sponsor \2\ (or
its designee) must obtain information from each client regarding the
client's financial situation and investment objectives, and must allow
the client an opportunity to impose reasonable restrictions on managing
the account.\3\ In addition, the sponsor (or its designee) must contact
the client annually to determine whether the client's financial
situation or investment objectives have changed and whether the client
wishes to impose any reasonable restrictions on the management of the
account or reasonably modify existing restrictions. The sponsor (or its
designee) must also notify the client quarterly, in writing, to contact
the sponsor (or its designee) regarding changes to the client's
financial situation, investment objectives, or restrictions on the
account's management.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of rule 3a-4, the term ``sponsor'' refers to
any person who receives compensation for sponsoring, organizing or
administering the program, or for selecting, or providing advice to
clients regarding the selection of, persons responsible for managing
the client's account in the program.
    \3\ Clients specifically must be allowed to designate securities
that should not be purchased for the account or that should be sold
if held in the account. The rule does not require that a client be
able to require particular securities be purchased for the account.
    \4\ The sponsor also must provide a means by which clients can
contact the sponsor (or its designee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The program must provide each client with a quarterly statement
describing all activity in the client's account during the previous
quarter. The sponsor and personnel of the client's account manager who
know about the client's account and its management must be reasonably
available to consult with the client. Each client also must retain
certain indicia of ownership of all securities and funds in the
account.
    The requirement that the sponsor (or its designee) obtain
information about each new client's financial situation and investment
objectives when their account is opened is designed to ensure that the
investment adviser has sufficient information regarding the client's
unique needs and goals to enable the portfolio manager to provide
individualized investment advice. The sponsor is required to contact
clients annually and provide them with quarterly notices to ensure that
the sponsor has current information about the client's financial
status, investment objectives, and restrictions on management of the
account. Maintaining current information enables the portfolio manager
to evaluate each client's portfolio in light of the client's changing
needs and circumstances. The requirement that clients be provided with
quarterly statements of account activity is designed to ensure each
client receives an individualized report, which the Commission believes
is a key element of individualized advisory services.
    The Commission staff estimates that 11,291,005 clients participate
each year in investment advisory programs relying on rule 3a-4. Of that
number, the staff estimates that 903,280 are new clients and 10,387,725
are continuing clients. The staff estimates that each year investment
advisory program sponsors staff engage in 1.3 hours per new client and
1 hour per continuing client to prepare, conduct and/or review
interviews regarding the client's financial situation and investment
objectives as required by the rule. Furthermore, the staff estimates
that each year investment advisory program staff spends 1 hour per
client to prepare and mail quarterly client account statements,
including notices to update information. Based on the estimates above,
the Commission estimates that the total annual burden of the rule's
paperwork requirements is 22,852,994 hours.
    The total annual hour burden of 22,852,994 hours represents an
increase of 17,245,466 hours from the prior estimate of 5,607,528
hours. This increase principally results from an increase in the
estimated number of clients, which was due to a change in the way
Commission staff made its estimates. The change in annual burden hours
also reflects changes in the estimated burden hours associated with
several of the collections of information required under the rule
(certain burden estimates increased and certain burden estimates
decreased). These changes in estimated burden hours per collection of
information result from changes in burden hours reported by
representatives of investment advisers that rely on rule 3a-4 that
Commission staff surveyed.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23538 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 37431]
[DOCID:fr29jn10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1472-000]

 Choice Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

June 21, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Choice Energy, LLC.'s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 12, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15698 Filed 6-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
                             2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE
                           ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF
									AIR AND RADIATION
August 28, 2018

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to Aircraft Engine Emissions Reporting Template

FROM: 	G. Cullen Leggett, Aerospace Engineer
	Assessment and Standards Division
	Office of Transport and Air Quality
	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO:	Information Collection Request; Aircraft Engine Supplemental Information Related to Exhaust Emissions (Renewal)
	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0546

This memo documents proposed changes to the Aircraft Engine Emissions Reporting Template (EPA Form Number: 5900-223).  These changes include the addition of non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) parameters requested in the ICR renewal and amendment. These changes are in Columns BD to CK.

Attachments:
EPA_Form-5900-223-reporting_template_aircraft-Proposed_Revision_v3.xlsx


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 20619-20620]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP98-151-005]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Application

April 10, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 1, 2008, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West
Virginia 25314, filed, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act,
an application to amend its certificate issued in Docket No. CP98-151.
Columbia proposes to amend its lease of capacity to Millennium Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. (Millennium) and Millennium's lease of capacity to
Columbia. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Fredric J. George, Lead Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation,
P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: May 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8146 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P