[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)] [Notices] [Pages 61794-61795] [FR Doc No: 2020-21707]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  85 FR 60845,  September 28, 2020.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, September  30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,  September 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please  contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)  551-5400.

    Dated: September 28, 2020. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2020-21707 Filed 9-28-20; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34238]
[DOCID:fr21jn07-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-469-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Limited
Waiver of Tariff Provisions

June 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) filed a Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Provisions to
waive section 32(L)(iii) of its General Terms and Conditions so it can
resolve a prior-period imbalance trading error between Koch Nitrogen
Company and Terra Nitrogen Corporation.
    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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time June 21, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-11947 Filed 6-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51465-51467]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0811]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Beachfest Fireworks, Pacific Ocean, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone, on the
navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean near San Diego in support of the
Beachfest Fireworks Display. This safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating
vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on October 10,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0811 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0811 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
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane Jackson, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose members of the public to the dangers associated
with fireworks displays. Immediate action is necessary to ensure the
safety of vessels, spectators, and other users of the waterway.
    For the same reasons, the Coast Guard also finds under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Fireworks & Stage FX Inc is sponsoring the Beachfest Fireworks
Display, which will include a fireworks presentation from Crystal Pier
in the Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California. The safety
zone will be a 600 foot radius around the end of the pier. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
vessels, spectators, and other users of the waterway.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on October 10, 2009. The limits of the safety
zone will be a 600 foot radius around the end of Crystal Pier in the
Pacific Beach neighborhood of San Diego, California. Persons and
vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port or his designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the affected portion of the Pacific Ocean from 8 p.m. to
10 p.m. on October 10, 2009.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be enforced in a small area for only two hours late in the
evening when vessel traffic is low. Commercial vessels will

not be hindered by the safety zone. Before the effective period, the
Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners and will issue
broadcast notice to mariners alerts via marine channel VHF 16 before
the temporary safety zone is enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction because the rule involves the establishment
of a safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-237 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-237  Safety Zone; Beachfest Fireworks, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Pacific Ocean, from surface to bottom, within 600 feet of
the fireworks launching site located at the end of Crystal Pier in San
Diego, CA.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on October 10, 2009. If the event

concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the
Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that
fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
As used in this section, designated representative, means any
commissioned, warrant, or petty officers of the Coast Guard on board
Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or local, State, or Federal law
enforcement vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of
the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San Diego or
his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Sector San Diego
Communications Center (COMCEN). The COMCEN may be contacted via VHF-FM
Channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
must proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local agencies.

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
T. H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-24176 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


May 25, 2004 Page 1 of 4 Final Minutes Registration Review Workgroup Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee April 14, 2004 Meeting Crystal Mall 2, Arlington VA Participants EPA: Jay Ellenberger, Susan Lewis, Kennan Garvey, Rich Dumas, Carol Stangel, Philip Ross, TJ Wyatt, Elisa Rim, David Stangel and Vivian Prunier PPDC Workgroup: Cindy Baker ( by teleconference), Steve Kellner, Therese Murtagh, Julie Spagnoli, Ray McAllister, Sue Crescenzi ( by teleconference), George Wichterman and Ted Head ( by teleconference)

Public attendees: Janine Rynczak, CPDA; Mary Beth Polley, Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, Phil Zahodiakin, Pesticide Insider; Daniel Botts, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Karen Warkentien, CSI; Jim Kunstman, PBI Gordon; Claudia Olivierri, BASF ( by teleconference); and Burleson Smith, USDA Introduction. Jay Ellenberger described the agenda for the meeting. Susan Lewis provided an update of the Agency's progress towards drafting a proposed rule.

Minutes of March 2, 2004 Meeting. The minutes were accepted as read.

Legislative history. Phil Ross discussed the committee report that addressed Congressional intent for registration review. ( United States House of Representatives; Committee Report 2 of 2; House Rpt 104 669, Part 1, Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.)

Issue One. What action( s) initiates a pesticide registration review? Before expending resources in a pesticide's registration review, the Agency would want to know whether registrants intend to support the pesticide and each of its uses. Other stakeholders might want to know this as well. The Agency is seeking advice on options for getting this type of information up front in a way that is efficient for both the Agency and the public.

Ray McAllister circulated a draft paper which can be summarized as follows: 1. When the Agency initiates the registration review program, it would publish a master schedule listing all the active ingredients, ranked by date of initial registration or reregistration, and the target year for their review. The master list would be subject to comment and to periodic revision. May 25, 2004 Page 2 of 4 2. Each year EPA would publish a list of active ingredients scheduled for registration review in the coming year. For each ingredient, EPA would make available include information including but not limited to the pesticide's regulatory history, registrations and registrants, uses, pending registration or DCI actions, recent risk assessments and a bibliography. 3. The notice would set a date for the initiation of a pesticide's review. Any new data requirements or policies established after this date would not be considered in the pesticide's registration review.

In response to a question from EPA, workgroup participants acknowledged that registrants could provide the information identified in item 2. However, they asserted their belief that at this step, it was the Agency's responsibility to show what it has.

The bibliography could include the results of a search of the open literature. The bibliography could be either a complete listing of all the studies the Agency has in its files or a list of studies that the Agency relied upon in making risk assessments. Workgroup members preferred a complete listing of all studies.

In addition to the information listed in the draft paper, the Agency could make available risk assessments conducted by other agencies or governments.

If the Agency has use and usage information, it should make this information available as well.

Issue Two. Early submission of test data and other information to support a pesticide's registration review. The Agency wants to receive pertinent information early in the registration review process in order to avoid redoing its risk assessments. Such rework delays completion of the pesticide's review and ties up scarce resources.

Cindy Baker presented a draft paper which can be summarized as follows: 1) The workgroup acknowledges of Agency's need for receiving pertinent information as early as possible and to have a public open process. 2) Stakeholders have diverse interests; EPA might develop a process ( e. g., a list serve) for helping stakeholders organize to prepare a submission. 3) Ways to ensure timely submission   adhere to a published schedule; clearly articulate data needs, including an explanation of how the Agency would use the data; guidelines regarding data quality; procedures for submitting data; and a contact person in the Agency Growers could contribute information on use and usage or perhaps comment on the reliability of use information that the Agency placed in the docket. May 25, 2004 Page 3 of 4 The workgroup and the Agency discussed the compensability of information that might be submitted voluntarily at this stage. If the Agency cites such data in a risk assessment that is the basis for a regulatory decision, then the data is compensable.

Issue Five. What is a registration review decision? In a pesticide's registration review, the Agency would determine whether a pesticide meets the requirements for registration under FIFRA section 3( c)( 5). Additionally, FIFRA section 3( g)( 2)( A) stipulates that EPA shall use its authority under FIFRA section 3( c)( 2)( B) to require submission of data when such data are necessary for registration review.

Sue Crescenzi presented a draft paper which identified the possible outcomes of a registration review as follows: ° Registration review concluded   no changes in current registration. ° Registration review concluded   risk mitigation or other action required. ° Registration review concluded   confirmatory data requested. ° Registration review cannot be concluded until additional data are submitted. ° Registration review concluded; on going generic data call in or other action   registration review decision may be revisited if necessary. ° Registration review concluded; active ingredient voluntarily cancelled. ° Registration review concluded; section 6 cancellation or suspension action.

Phil Ross commented that the term " confirmatory data" might need to be defined so that its meaning is clear.

Other issues In addition to discussing Issue 5, Sue Crescenzi's draft paper addressed two other issues: " Procedures for addressing active ingredients and individually registered products" and " Options for documents communicating registration review decisions."

With respect to the first issue, the workgroup agreed that a registration review case would include the active ingredient and the pesticide products that contain the ingredient. Registration review could be a review of product labels and possibly submission of amended labels. A product with multiple active ingredients could be in two or more registration review cases.

The workgroup considered how to expedite implementation of label changes that might be needed a result of registration review. The group identified two possible bottlenecks   delays in receiving Agency approval of amended labels and delays that occur as old labels make their way through channels of trade. The delay due to channels of trade may be eliminated by using " electronic labels" where the purchaser downloads the most current label when he buys the product. May 25, 2004 Page 4 of 4 With respect to communicating registration review decisions, the workgroup found that registrants and the public both need to know the Agency's decision. Registrants may need specific documentation, such as final stamped labels, data call in notices, or letters of agreement to signify the conclusion of registration review.

Presentation for May PPDC meeting. The workgroup's presentation will cover the following topics: ° Review FIFRA 3( g) mandate; recap October 2003 presentation   Julie Spagnoli and Therese Murtagh ° Three issues discussed in 2004   Ray McAllister, Cindy Baker, Sue Crescenzi ° Next steps in regulation development   EPA Materials are to be provided to Julie and Therese by May 10.

If needed, there could be a conference call on May 18.

Rehearsal for May PPDC meeting. The workgroup will meet on Monday, May 24 in the afternoon, location to be determined. The meeting will be announced on the OPP website.