[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13044-13046]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05603]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74450; File No. SR-BATS-2015-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.13, Order Execution, To Delete References to the ROLF Routing
Option, Which Routed Order to LavaFlow ECN

March 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 20, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this 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)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution,
to delete references to the ROLF routing option, which routed order to
LavaFlow ECN.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13, Order Execution, to
delete references under subparagraphs (a)(3)(H) and (a)(3)(M) to the
ROLF routing option, which routed to LavaFlow ECN. These changes are
being proposed in response to LavaFlow ECN ceasing market operations on
Friday, January 30, 2015. Under Rule 11.13(a)(3)(M), an order utilizing
the ROLF routing option first checked the System \5\ for available
shares and was then routed to the LavaFlow ECN. If shares remained
unexecuted after being routed, they were cancelled, unless otherwise
instructed by the User.\6\ In addition, under Rule 11.13(a)(3)(H), a
User was able to couple the Post to Away routing option and ROLF
routing option. The grouping of the Post to Away and ROLF routing
options instructed the System to route and post the order on LavaFlow
ECN. As of February 2, 2015, the Exchange, via BATS Trading, the
Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, was no longer able to
route orders to LavaFlow ECN because it ceased operations. As a result,
the Exchange no longer offers the ROLF routing option nor permit it to
be coupled with a Post to Away routing option. Therefore, the Exchange
proposes to delete the ROLF routing option under Rule 11.13(a)(3)(M) as
well as a reference to the ROLF routing option under Rule
11.13(a)(3)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Exchange Rule 1.5(aa) defines ``System'' as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.''
    \6\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange does not
believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers because the ROLF routing option will no
longer be available to all Users. The proposed change is in response to
LavaFlow ECN ceasing market operations on Friday, January 30, 2015. As
of February 2, 2015, the Exchange, via BATS Trading, was no longer able
to route orders to LavaFlow ECN and, therefore, proposes to delete
references to the ROLF routing option under Rules 11.13(a)(3)(H) and
(a)(3)(M). The proposal is intended to make the Exchange's rules
clearer and less confusing for investors by eliminating a routing
option that is no longer available; thereby removing impediments to and
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to
address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by
eliminating a routing option that is no longer made available by the
Exchange.

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 written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has been filed by the Exchange as a
``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of
the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
Consequently, because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so the Exchange may
clarify its rules in a timely manner by eliminating a rule that
accounts for a service the Exchange does not provide, thereby avoiding
potential investor confusion during the operative delay period. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to clarify its rules in a timely
manner and avoid potential investor confusion. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily 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.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-BATS-2015-17 and should be
submitted on or before April 2, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05603 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 3744]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0001]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that on December 31, 2019, Canadian Pacific
Railway (CP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety
Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment;
End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2020-
0001.
    Specifically, CP proposes to implement a virtual simulation as a
third alternative to satisfy the ``hands-on'' portion of periodic
refresher training required by 49 CFR 232.203(b)(8). Refresher training
is required at intervals not to exceed 3 years, and shall consist of
classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. CP states that the
simulation will improve consistency and quality of training.
    The simulation is based on performance of a Class I freight air
brake test and is designed to place the user in a virtual realistic
scenario. The user is required to perform a variety of inspection tasks
including, but not limited to, identifying closed cut-out cocks,
uncoupled air hoses, closed angle cocks, improperly positioned retainer
valves, and using a two-way end of train telemetry device. Users are
required to successfully complete all tasks in the scenario. CP
proposes to limit the class size to 12 students and seeks to apply this
waiver systemwide to all CP operating personnel (e.g., trainmen,
enginemen, and field supervisors responsible for performing freight air
brakes tests.)
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    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 parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, 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 and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: 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 Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 9, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-00977 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9222-9223]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-N-0444]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug
Administration (All FDA-Regulated Products)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on focus groups as used by FDA to
gauge public opinion on all FDA-regulated products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug Administration (All FDA-
Regulated Products)--(OMB Control Number 0910-0497)--Extension

    FDA conducts focus group interviews on a variety of topics
involving FDA-regulated products including, drugs, biologics, devices,
food, tobacco, and veterinary medicine.
    Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information
because they allow for a more in-depth understanding of consumers'
attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative
studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and
informal opinion on a specific topic and as a qualitative research tool
have three major purposes:
     To obtain consumer information that is useful for
developing variables and measures for quantitative studies,
     To better understand consumers' attitudes and emotions in
response to topics and concepts, and,
     To further explore findings obtained from quantitative
studies.
    FDA will use focus group findings to test and refine their ideas,
but will generally conduct further research before making important
decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting
significant resources to support these policies.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                              Activity                                  Number of      frequency per     Total annual      Hours per       Total hours
                                                                       respondents        response        responses         response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Group Interviews.............................................            1440                1             1440             1.75             2520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Annually, FDA projects about 20 focus group studies using 160 focus
groups with an average of 9 persons per group, and lasting an average
of 1.75 hours each. FDA is requesting this burden for unplanned focus
groups so as not to restrict the agency's ability to gather information
on public sentiment of its proposals in its regulatory and
communications programs.

    Dated: February 10, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-03351 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23351-23354]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0124]

Beyond Compliance Program

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
requires FMCSA to implement a ``Beyond Compliance'' program no later
than 18 months after the enactment of the Act. Through this proposed
program, the FMCSA Administrator must allow recognition, either through
credit recognized by a new Beyond Compliance Behavior Analysis and
Safety Improvement Category (BASIC), or an improved Safety Measurement
System (SMS) percentile, for a motor carrier that: (1) Installs
advanced safety equipment; (2) uses enhanced driver fitness measures;
(3) adopts fleet safety management tools, technologies, and programs;
or (4) satisfies other standards determined appropriate by the
Administrator. The FAST Act also requires that the Agency provide the
opportunity for notice and comment on a process for identifying and
reviewing advanced safety equipment, enhanced driver fitness measures,
fleet safety management tools, technologies, and programs, and other
standards for use by motor carriers to receive recognition. This
proposed program will not allow relief from regulatory requirements.
This notice satisfies that requirement to seek comments on this
program. Comments and data received in response to this notice will be
used to further develop the Beyond Compliance program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0124 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Theresa Rowlett, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2015-0124), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2015-0124, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may draft an additional notice of program
development based on your comments and other information and analysis.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2015-0124, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its program policy development process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Background

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) Tasking

    On March 30, 2015, FMCSA tasked the MCSAC with providing
recommendations to the Agency on the potential benefits and feasibility
of voluntary compliance and ways to credit carriers and drivers who
initiate and establish programs that promote safety beyond the
standards established in FMCSA regulations. The Agency specifically
asked for the views of the MCSAC on this concept, with any data or
analysis to support it with regard to three basic areas:
    1. What voluntary technologies or safety program best practices
would be appropriate for beyond compliance?
    2. What type of incentives would encourage motor carriers to invest
in technologies and best practices programs?
    3. How would FMCSA verify the voluntary technologies or safety
programs were being implemented?
    The Agency received the MCSAC's letter report on September 21,
2015. The MCSAC noted that the ideas in the report were not based on a
full discussion on the merits; rather, these ideas were suggested and
supported by a variety of MCSAC members. It was the Committee's
intention to provide FMCSA with a broad range of ideas that address the
questions the Agency laid out in the Task Statement from the diverse
group of stakeholders that constitute the MCSAC membership.
Additionally, the MCSAC noted that the inclusion of ideas in this
report was not based on a discussion of whether sufficient data exists
to support the use of the relevant incentive or on cost/benefit
considerations. A copy of the

Task Statement and the letter report are included in the docket for
this program referenced above.

April 2015 Federal Register Notice

    On April 17, 2015, FMCSA issued a Federal Register notice
requesting comment for possible development of a Beyond Compliance
program. FMCSA sought responses to the following specific questions and
encourages the submission of any other reports or data on this issue.
    1. What voluntary technologies or safety program best practices
would be appropriate for a Beyond Compliance program?
    2. What safety performance metrics should be used to evaluate the
success of voluntarily implemented technologies or safety program best
practices?
    3. What incentives would encourage motor carriers to invest in
technologies and best practices programs?
    a. Credit on appropriate SMS scores (e.g., credit in Driver Fitness
for use of an employer notification system)?
    b. Credit on ISS scores?
    c. Reduction in roadside inspection frequency?
    d. Other options?
    4. What events should cause the incentives to be removed?
    a. If safety goals for the carrier are not consistently achieved,
what is the benefit to the motoring public?
    5. Should this program be developed by the private sector like
PrePass, ISO 9000, or Canada's Partners in Compliance (PIC)?
    6. How would FMCSA verify that the voluntary technologies or safety
programs were being implemented?
    Forty-four responsive comments were received. The majority of
commenters supported the idea of a program that gave recognition for
voluntarily exceeding the requirements. However, 13 commenters were
vendors with products or programs that could receive additional sales
as a result of this program.
    The United Motorcoach Association (UMA), the Owner Operator and
Independent Driver Association (OOIDA) and Dale Chandler indicated that
they were opposed to a Beyond Compliance program. Reasons cited
included concerns that this type of program would be biased against
small motor carriers that could not afford the investment and that this
program would take resources away from FMCSA's safety missions.

Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act

    In December 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (Dec. 4,
2015)) which requires FMCSA to implement a ``Beyond Compliance''
program no later than 18 months after the enactment of the Act. Section
5222 specifically requires that FMCSA allow recognition, including
credit or an improved SMS percentile, for a motor carrier that: (1)
Installs advanced safety equipment; (2) uses enhanced driver fitness
measures; (3) adopts fleet safety management tools, technologies, and
programs; or (4) satisfies other standards determined appropriate by
the Administrator.
    This section of the FAST Act also prescribes that the Administrator
must carry out the program by either incorporating a methodology into
the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program; or establishing a
safety Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) in SMS.
    In developing the Beyond Compliance program, the Agency must
develop a process for identifying and reviewing advanced safety
equipment, enhanced driver fitness measures, fleet safety management
tools, technologies, and programs, and other standards for use by motor
carriers to receive recognition, including credit or an improved SMS
percentile. Section 5222 prescribes that this process must provide for
a petition process for reviewing advanced safety equipment, enhanced
driver fitness measures, fleet safety management tools, technologies,
and programs, and other standards; and seek input and participation
from industry stakeholders, including commercial motor vehicle drivers,
technology manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, motor carriers, law
enforcement, safety advocates, and the MCSAC. As noted above, the MCSAC
was already consulted on this program. This notice seeks comments from
other noted parties.
    In Section 5222(e) of the FAST Act, Congress provided the
Administrator with the authority to monitor motor carriers that receive
recognition through a no-cost contract. This means that the costs for
monitoring this program would be charged to the motor carrier by the
third party contractor. FMCSA is currently completing the acquisition
planning process required to establish this no-cost contract.
    FMCSA must maintain a publicly accessible Web site that provides
information on--(1) the advanced safety equipment, enhanced driver
fitness measures, fleet safety management tools, technologies, and
programs eligible for recognition; (2) any petitions for review of
advanced safety equipment, enhanced driver fitness measures, fleet
safety management tools, technologies, and programs, and other
standards; and (3) any relevant statistics relating to the use of
advanced safety equipment, enhanced driver fitness measures, fleet
safety management tools, technologies, and programs, and other
standards.
    Section 5222 of the FAST Act requires initiation of the Beyond
Compliance Program within 18 months from the date of the Act, and
section 5223 of the FAST Act prohibits the display of certain important
safety information on the Agency's SMS Web site until the Beyond
Compliance program is initiated. Once the program is initiated, and
within 3 years after the date of enactment of the FAST Act, FMCSA must
submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a report on the number of motor carriers
receiving recognition and the safety performance of such carriers.

Listening Sessions

    On December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80447), FMCSA announced in the Federal
Register that it would be holding two listening sessions on the Beyond
Compliance program. The sessions were held on January 12 and 31, 2016,
to solicit information on the potential benefits and feasibility of
voluntary compliance and ways to credit carriers who initiate and
establish programs that promote safety beyond the standards established
in FMCSA regulations. The listening sessions were intended to provide
interested parties with an opportunity to share their views on this
topic with Agency representatives, along with any data or analysis they
may have. All comments were transcribed and have been placed in the
docket referenced above. This input was considered by FMCSA in
developing the proposed program described below. Additional listening
sessions are being planned for Louisville, KY, and Chicago, IL, on
April 1 and 25, 2016, respectively. A separate notice will be published
with the times and meeting locations for these listening sessions.

Proposed Program

    Below is a description of FMCSA's proposal for the Beyond
Compliance program. The Agency seeks comments and data that will
support the development and implementation of this program.
Credit Through a Beyond Compliance BASIC
    FMCSA proposes to create a new BASIC in SMS. The Beyond Compliance

BASIC would appear when a motor carrier is approved and participating
in the Beyond Compliance program. The Agency proposes this means of
acknowledging those programs that exceed regulatory requirements
voluntarily for two reasons. First, many commenters to the April 2015
Federal Register notice advised that public recognition of
participation in this program would provide value. Those companies with
this BASIC would distinguish themselves from other companies when the
public display of SMS is reinstated in the future. Second, developing
and maintaining a separate BASIC in SMS can be completed within the 18
month timeframe prescribed by the FAST Act, whereas making
modifications to the SMS methodology would be more complicated and time
consuming, and potentially impact the study of the SMS methodology
required by Section 5221 of the FAST Act. In addition, a separate BASIC
is easier and more cost effective for the Agency to implement and
maintain. This alternative allows FMCSA to only modify the SMS and does
not need to tie to data in other systems such as the Motor Carrier
Management Information System.
    FMCSA is specifically seeking comments on this proposal, and the
pros and cons of the Beyond Compliance BASIC.
Programs Meeting the Requirements of the Beyond Compliance Program
    The FAST Act prescribes the eligibility for the Beyond Compliance
program. As a result, this program is available to a motor carrier
that: (1) Installs advanced safety equipment; (2) uses enhanced driver
fitness measures; (3) adopts fleet safety management tools,
technologies, and programs; or (4) satisfies other standards determined
appropriate by the Administrator.
    FMCSA proposes that technologies that are not currently mandatory,
such as Electronic Logging Devices, would be eligible until they are
required.
Eligibility
    A motor carrier would be eligible to apply for the Beyond
Compliance program if the following criteria were met:
    1. The motor carrier did not have a Conditional or Unsatisfactory
safety rating;
    2. The motor carrier did not have any BASICs over intervention
thresholds at the time of the application;
    3. The proposed technology or program must be applied to the
company's population of vehicles or drivers to adequately achieve the
performance goal and improve safety;
    4. The motor carrier must be an interstate carrier; and
    5. The motor carrier must have graduated from the new entrant
monitoring period.
    Commenters supported establishing this program for companies that
are already demonstrating compliance with the Agency's regulations.
Specifically, John Boyle, of Boyle Brothers, Inc., noted that FMCSA
``should focus on and reward real world results rather than who can
attract technology partners or self-promote the best.'' The Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) added, ``The purpose of such a program
is to recognize motor carriers who go above and beyond the minimum
requirements. Releasing participating motor carriers from the minimum
requirements is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the purpose
of the program. CVSA strongly opposes any effort to do so.'' Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety noted that ``Any program to support
voluntary initiatives must, therefore, be predicated on adequate
performance standards and documented safety improvement data that
ensures the initiatives are actually contributing to highway safety.''
The Owners Operators and Independent Drivers Association opined that
``. . . this proposal is largely being driven by technology firms whose
primary interest is financial, and by large carriers who have already
adopted technology but have not realized real improvement to their
safety scores.''
Petition Submission Process
    FMCSA proposes that petitions for technologies and safety programs
for consideration in a Beyond Compliance would be submitted using an
on-line tool to be developed by FMCSA. The on-line petition process
would require the motor carrier to provide at least the following
information:
    1. USDOT number;
    2. Company name and doing business as (DBA) names
    3. Company official name, title, contact info;
    4. Proposed technology or program;
    5. Coverage (drivers and/or fleet);
    6. Baseline safety information;
    7. Expected improvement;
    8. Estimated cost;
    9. Installation timeframe (past or future); and
    10. Self-certification.
    Baseline safety information would include a statement of the safety
gains sought, defined with data. This must be a measurable performance
data that can be monitored to determine if improvement has been made.
    FMCSA specifically requests comments on other data that should be
required with the application.
    It is also anticipated that this online system would allow
requestors to submit documentation in support of the request.
Documentation to be submitted with a request would include, but is not
limited to:
    1. Vendor documentation;
    2. Training materials;
    3. Company policies;
    4. Company monitoring plans; and
    5. Other proof of implementation.
    FMCSA specifically requests information on what documentation
should be submitted with an application.
Petition Review Process
    As noted above, the FAST Act allows FMCSA to award a no-cost
contract to a third party to provide monitoring support for this
program. It is expected that this third party would be used to
interview applicants and complete validation of the application. The
third-party would make recommendations to FMCSA on whether or not
applications should be approved.
    FMCSA would complete review of submitted petitions within 60 days.
Applicants would receive a written decision by email. If the
application is approved, the motor carrier would see the Beyond
Compliance BASIC on its SMS profile. At this point in the process, SMS
would show that the motor carrier is ``Deployed.''
    If FMCSA does not agree that the application met the requirements
of the program, a justification for this decision would be provided so
that the motor carrier may adjust the application and resubmit.
Mandatory Use Period and Monitoring
    Within approximately 6 months after the application is approved,
the approved program or technology would be evaluated to identify the
impacts on the baseline performance measures. This monitoring would be
conducted by the third-party contractor. The use of the technology or
safety program would be confirmed and if the safety baseline has
improved, the Beyond Compliance BASIC would indicate that the motor
carrier is ``Improved.''
Recurring Monitoring
    Recurring monitoring would be conducted by the third party
contractor. FMCSA proposes that use of the approved technology or
safety program would be validated at least annually. The validation
could occur through an on-site review, submission of documentation,
self-certification, or

another method of evaluation. FMCSA specifically requests comments on
other means of validating the sustained use of the approved technology
or safety programs.
Removal From the Program
    A motor carrier would be immediately removed from the program if it
received a final conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating; was
declared an imminent hazard; or received an out of service or
revocation order from FMCSA. Additionally, a motor carrier would be
removed from the program immediately if it was determined that the
approved technology or safety program was not being used or was being
used by fewer drivers/vehicles than approved.
    A motor carrier would be provided a warning if an alert(s) exceeded
the intervention threshold or did not maintain performance above the
performance baseline specified in its application. If the SMS measure
or the performance did not improve within 6 months, the motor carrier
would be removed from the program.
SMS Display
    FMCSA will design the change to SMS to show a Beyond Compliance
BASIC. Information on the Beyond Compliance BASIC detail page would
explains that this BASIC exists for carriers that have applied to this
program and been approved. The detail page would also include a brief
explanation of the technology or program and would show if the program
is ``Deployed'' or ``Improved.''
Cost
    As noted above, FMCSA has the authority to contract for a no-cost
contract to provide monitoring services for this program. This means
that the costs of the work performed by this third party would be paid
by the motor carrier. For the monitoring that would be conducted as
part of the application process, FMCSA estimates that this would take,
on average, five hours per carrier. However, it is acknowledged that
some programs or technologies will requires significantly more
resources to monitor. At a wage that is commensurate with a GS-13
Management Analyst in the Washington, DC, area, this would equate to
$44.15 per hour or $220.
    It is expected that the six month validation would be two hours, or
$88, and the annual review would take two additional hours, or an
additional $88 per year. Assuming a carrier is in the program for five
years, FMCSA estimates that the fee would be approximately $750 per
motor carrier. This would be the expected cost for a program
implemented on a small number of vehicles and/or drivers. It is
expected that the costs would be tiered so that larger programs
requiring more monitoring would incur a higher cost. FMCSA specifically
seeks data and cost information to determine the appropriate range of
fees to be paid by the motor carrier under the no-cost contract.

    Issued on: April 13, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-09118 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 59218]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20657]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9951-61-Region 2]

Proposed Settlement Pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA
Relating to the Newstead Superfund Site, in the Town of Newstead, Erie
County, New York.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed
settlement agreement pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, entered into
by and EPA, Region 2, and The Sherwin-Williams Company, (``Settling
Party''), pertaining to the Newstead Superfund Site (``Site'') located
in the Town of Newstead, Erie County, New York. Under the Settlement
Agreement, the Settling Party agrees to pay EPA $1,000,000.00 in
reimbursement of past response costs incurred at the Site.
    The Settlement Agreement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or
to take administrative action against the Settling Party pursuant to
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to Past
Response Costs as defined in the Settlement Agreement. For thirty (30)
days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive
written comments relating to the Settlement Agreement. EPA will
consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent
to the Settlement Agreement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed Settlement Agreement is
inappropriate, improper or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2
offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The proposed Settlement Agreement is available for public
inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York
10007-1866. A copy may also be obtained from Meredith D. Fishburn,
Attorney-Advisor, Office of Enforcement & Compliance, Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should reference the Newstead
Superfund Site, Town of Newstead, Erie County, New York., Index No.
CERCLA-02-2016-2015 and should be sent by mail or email to Meredith
Fishburn, Newstead Superfund Site Attorney, at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith D. Fishburn, Attorney-
Advisor, Office of Enforcement & Compliance, Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Walter Mugdan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2016-20657 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14906-14907]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05693]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0072; FRL-10021-43]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request March 2021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 69553-
EUP-E from Andermatt Biocontrol AG (c/o SciReg, Inc.), requesting an
experimental use permit (EUP) for Cydia pomonella granulovirus isolate
V45. The Agency has determined that the permit may be of regional and
national significance. Therefore, because of the potential
significance, EPA is seeking comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0072, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as i prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to
field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to
obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides
if they conduct experimental field tests on more than 10 acres of land
or more than one surface acre of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Andermatt Biocontrol AG, Stahlermatten 6, CH-6146,
Grossdietwil, Switzerland (c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192).
    Experimental Use Permit Number: 69553-EUP-E.
    Pesticide Chemical: Cydia pomonella granulovirus isolate V45.
    Summary of Request: Andermatt Biocontrol AG is proposing to use 431
pounds of a Cydia pomonella granulovirus isolate V45 product, CX-6485,
on over 300 acres between the 2022-2023 growing seasons on pome fruit
(apple and pear), stone fruit (peach, nectarine, apricot, and hybrids
of these) and walnut in California, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The use of the product is
intended to verify its efficacy in reducing fruit damage by codling
moth and Oriental fruit moth in larger plots under more realistic
production conditions than possible in single-tree or small plot
studies.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

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

    Dated: March 9, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-05693 Filed 3-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 80)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23188]
[DOCID:fr26ap11-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0262]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the community to participate in
the Roger's Jewelry Bicycle Ride. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. on May 21,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0262 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0262 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 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 e-mail David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower
Drawbridge, mile 59.0, Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower
Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other
times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is
given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. on May 21, 2011 to allow the community to
participate in the Roger's Jewelry Bicycle Ride. This temporary
deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. There are no
scheduled river boat cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during
this deviation period. No objections to the proposed temporary
deviation were raised.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. In the event of
an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 15 minutes advance notice.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 7, 2011.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-9989 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26391-26392]
[DOCID:fr09my08-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-183-000]

PSI Midstream Partners, L.P.; Notice of Petition for a
Declaratory Order

May 2, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 24, 2008, PSI Midstream Partners, L.P.
(PSI), filed pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a petition for a
declaratory order. In its petition, PSI requests the Commission to
issue an order declaring that certain facilities to be acquired by PSI,
non-jurisdictional gathering facilities pursuant to section 1(b) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA). The facilities to be acquired by PSI consist of
a natural gas lateral pipeline, which extends from West Cameron Block
498 to an interconnection with a pipeline owned and operated by Texas
Eastern Transmission Company (TETCO) in East Cameron B lock 227.
Tennessee is filing contemporaneously with PSI's petition an
application pursuant to section 7(b) of the NGA to abandon and convey
the lateral pipeline to PSI. 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 ``e-Library''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at FERCOnlineSupport or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Matthew M. Schreck, counsel to PSI, 9525 Katy Freeway, Suite 420,
Houston, Texas 77024, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 comment date stated below, 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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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.
    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
(http://www.ferc.gov) site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: May 23, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10293 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28480]
[DOCID:fr21my07-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-445-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

May 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 8, 2007, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El
Paso) filed a petition for declaratory order pursuant to Rule 207 of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations (18 CFR 385.207), declaring that
El Paso's tariff does not permit prior period adjustments for
measurement and invoicing errors occurring more than six months prior
to the date that UNS Gas Inc. (UNS) disputed transportation invoices,
and finding specifically that any erroneous invoices were not the
result of a mutual mistake of fact.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time, May 30, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9680 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11808-11809]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03764]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0762; FRL-9781-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee:
Approve Knox County Supplemental Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA on December 13, 2012, by
the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation. Tennessee's December 13, 2012, SIP revision includes
changes to the maintenance plan for the Knox County 1-hour ozone area
submitted on August 26, 1992, and approved by EPA on September 27,
1993, and a subsequent SIP revision approved by EPA on August 5, 1997.
The Knox County 1-hour ozone area was comprised of Knox County in its
entirety. The December 13, 2012, SIP revision proposes to increase the
safety margin allocated to motor vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compounds for Knox County to account for
changes in the emissions model and vehicle miles traveled projection
model. EPA is approving this SIP revision because the State has
demonstrated that it is consistent with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0762 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0762,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Kelly
Sheckler may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 2012, EPA proposed to
approve, through parallel processing, a draft revision to the Tennessee
SIP. EPA explained in that notice that if the State's final submission
was changed, EPA will evaluate those changes and if necessary and
appropriate, issue another notice of proposed rulemaking. Tennessee's
final submittal was different from its draft submittal and as a result,
EPA is now taking direct final action and this proposed action to
approve Tennessee's final submittal dated December 13, 2012. Today's
actions replace and supercede EPA's previous December 18, 2012,
proposal action.
    Additionally, on March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436. The
current action, however, is being taken to address requirements under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    For additional information regarding today's action see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register. Through that direct final rule, EPA is approving the State's
implementation plan revision without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: February 7, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-03764 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38074-38076]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15240]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0404; FRL-8740-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (``CAA'' or
the ``Act''), the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') gives notice of a proposed consent decree in Environmental
Integrity Project v. Regan, No. 1:21-cv-00009 (D.D.C.). In this
litigation, Environmental Integrity Project (``EIP'') alleged that the
Administrator of EPA failed to perform certain non-discretionary duties
to timely respond to petitions asking EPA to object to eight operating
permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(``TCEQ''). The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for
EPA to take action in response to these petitions. The proposed consent
decree does not require EPA to take any specific, particular action in
response to the petitions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2021-0404, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for

this action. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information about
Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing
mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by
scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our Federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Charles Starrs, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0404) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would fully resolve a lawsuit filed by
EIP, Sierra Club, Port Arthur Community Action Network, Environment
Texas, and Neta Rhyne (the ``Plaintiffs'') seeking to compel the
Administrator to take action, in accordance with CAA section 505(b)(2),
42 U.S.C. 7661d(b)(2), to respond to eight petitions. The lawsuit,
Environmental Integrity Project v. Regan, No. 1:21-cv-00009, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on
January 4, 2021.
    In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that TCEQ issued, at various
times under Title V of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f), operating
permits to eight facilities located in Texas: The ETC Texas Pipeline
Ltd.'s Waha Gas Plant (located in Pecos County); Premcor Refining Group
Inc.'s Port Arthur Refinery (located in Jefferson County); Sandy Creek
Services, LLC's Sandy Creek Energy Station (located in McLennan
County); Phillips 66's Borger Refinery (located in Hutchinson County);
Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate LLC's Galena Park Facility (located in
Galena Park, Harris County); Oak Grove Management Company's Oak Grove
Steam Electric (located in Robertson County); BP Amoco Chemical
Company's Texas City Chemical Plant (located in Galveston County); and
Blanchard Refining Company LLC's Galveston Bay Refinery (located in
Galveston County). The Plaintiffs also allege that they submitted to
EPA petitions asking EPA to object to the eight operating permits
issued by TCEQ and that EPA has failed to meet its nondiscretionary
duty to timely respond to those petitions.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA shall, in
accordance with a stated schedule, sign responses to the eight
petitions at issue in the litigation. The schedule requires EPA to sign
responses to: Three of the eight petitions by August 31, 2021; an
additional one of the petitions by September 30, 2021; an additional
one of the petitions by October 31, 2021; an additional one of the
petitions by November 30, 2021; an additional one of the petitions by
December 31, 2021; and an additional one of the petitions by January
31, 2022. In accordance with that schedule, EPA will respond to all the
petitions not later than January 31, 2022. EPA retains discretion to
determine the order of its petition responses or which petition
response is made by which date. Although the proposed consent decree
requires EPA action in accordance with a schedule, it does not dictate
the substance or specific nature of EPA's responses to the petitions.
The proposed consent decree also requires that, as EPA responds to the
petitions, EPA shall send notice of the response to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication in the Federal Register. See the
proposed consent decree in the docket for other terms and conditions.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the
Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent
decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold
consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts
or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate,
improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-
0404, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your

name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact
information in the body of your comment. 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. 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.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body 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.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-15240 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68870]
[DOCID:fr06de07-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ08-2-000]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

November 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 26, 2007, Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville) filed a petition of declaratory order
requesting the Commission to find that the terms and conditions of two
unexecuted Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service
Agreements between Bonneville and Caithness Shepherds Flat, LLC, for
service over Bonneville's transmission system commencing November 1,
2007, and December 1, 2007, are consistent with its Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT), and that the service commencement dates are
the appropriate dates under the OATT.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 26, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23629 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P