Proposed Changes to General Conformity Rule to bring consistency with
Exceptional Events rule

--- per 4/5/07 call with Pete Lahm (USFS) Amy Flynn (OMB) and Tom Coda
(EPA) – Revised 4/10/07

--- per 4/24/07 call with Pete Lahm (USFS) and Bill Harnett (EPA)  --
Revised 4/24/07

--- per 4/27/07 call with Pete Lahm (USFS) and Tom Coda (EPA)  ---
Revised 4/2707

PREAMBLE:

1.  Based on EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires, which was developed in consultation with Federal land
managers, EPA is taking comment on two possible approaches: 1) to
include a presumption of conformity for prescribed fire use that are
conducted in compliance with certified smoke management programs (SMPs),
and 2) for prescribed fires conducted using State approved basic smoke
management practices.

* * * * *

Second, EPA is taking comment on allowing Federal agencies to presume
that the emissions from prescribed burns in a nonattainment or
maintenance area will conform provided the burning is conducted under a
State certified SMP.  Alternatively, EPA is also asking for comments on
the approach of allowing Federal agencies to presume that the emissions
from prescribed burns conducted using State approved basic smoke
management practices in a nonattainment or maintenance area conform with
a SIP.

In May 1998, EPA worked with States and other Federal agencies to
develop and publish an interim policy on prescribed fires on wildlands.
(See Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires,
U.S.EPA, May 1998).  To comply with the recommendations in the interim
policy, state air regulators and land managers should develop a
certified SMP which promotes regional coordination, and may include
real-time air quality monitoring.  A State SMP establishes a basic
framework of procedures and requirements for managing smoke from a
prescribed fire managed for resource benefits. A SMP is typically
developed by a State or Tribe with cooperation and participation by
wildland managers, both public and private, and the general public. The
SMPs establish procedures and requirements for minimizing emissions and
managing smoke dispersion.  The goals of SMPs are to mitigate the
nuisance and public safety hazards (e.g., on roadways and at airports)
posed by smoke intrusions into populated areas; to prevent deterioration
of air quality and NAAQS violations; and to address visibility impacts
in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

Given the fundamental purpose of the SMP, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to assume that any action in compliance with the certified
SMP would be in conformance with the applicable SIP.  Therefore, EPA is
taking comment on the approach to designate these actions as actions
presumed to conform.  Federal agencies would not have to conduct a
conformity determination for those actions.  The presumption to conform
is also based on the maintenance in stringency of the existing SMPs
where implemented or the implementation of new smoke management programs
or practices as identified above.

As reflected in the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires, States are provided flexibility on the structure of a
SMP. Thus, a SMP can be extensive and detailed, or simply identify the
basic smoke management practices for minimizing emissions, and
controlling impacts from a prescribed fire.  The EPA’s final rule on
the Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 55) states that
basic smoke management practices could include, among other practices,
steps that will minimize air pollutant emissions during and after the
burn, evaluate dispersion conditions to minimize exposure of sensitive
populations, actions to notify populations and authorities at sensitive
receptors and contingency actions during the fire to reduce exposure of
people at such receptors, identify steps taken to monitor the effects of
the fire on air quality, and identify procedures to ensure that burners
are using basic smoke management practices.

The Agency plans to begin revising its Interim Air Quality Policy on
Wildland and Prescribed Fires in 2007 as part of its overall Fire
Strategy.  The Agency believes that the conditions for prescribed fires
that are presumed to conform should be conducted in accordance with
programs and practices which meet the requirements of EPA’s Air
Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires and those conditions
should be deliberated in the formation of the revised policy. To inform
the development of that policy, and the final revisions of this General
Conformity rule, EPA is also requesting comment on an alternative
additional approach for allowing a presumption to conform for emissions
from prescribed fires conducted in the absence of a State certified SMP,
where the Federal agency submits a demonstration and obtains written
permission from the State prior to the burn that the planned burn
employs State approved basic smoke management practices.  This approach
would thereby protect public health in nonattainment and maintenance
areas where a SMP has not been adopted, and allow Federal agencies the
flexibility needed to conduct necessary prescribed burning.

REG TEXT:

(i)  Emissions from the following actions are presumed to conform:

(1) Actions at installations with facility-wide emission budgets meeting
the requirements in §93.161 provided that the State has included the
emission budget in the EPA approved SIP and the emissions from the
action along with all other emissions from the installation will not
exceed the facility-wide emission budget.

 Alternative 1 for paragraph (i)(2)

(2) Prescribed fires conducted in accordance with a State certified
smoke management program (SMP) which meets the requirements of EPA’s
Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires.

Alternative 2 for paragraph (i)(2)

(2) Prescribed fires conducted in accordance with a State certified
smoke management program (SMP) which meets the requirements of EPA’s
Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires or, in the absence
of a State certified SMP, where the Federal agency has obtained written
assurance from the State prior to the burn that the planned burn employs
State approved basic smoke management practices.

(3) Emissions for actions that the State identifies in the EPA approved
SIP as presumed to conform.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25281-25282]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Food Protection Workshop; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA), Southwest Regional Office (SWRO), in co-sponsorship with
the University of Arkansas (UA) Institute of Food Science and
Engineering, is announcing a public workshop entitled ``Food Protection
Workshop.'' This public workshop is intended to provide information
about food safety, food defense, the regulations authorized by the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), and other related subjects to the Food
Protection Plan as it relates to food establishments such as farms,
manufacturers, processors, distributors, retailers, and restaurants.
    Date and Time: This public workshop will be held on June 9 and 10,
2010, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Continuing
Education Center, Two East Center St., Fayetteville, AR (located
downtown).
    Contact: David Arvelo, Food and Drug Administration, Southwest
Regional Office, 4040 North Central Expressway, suite 900, Dallas, TX
75204,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on accommodation options, visit http://www.uark.edu/ua/foodpro/Workshops/Food_Safety_Defense_Workshop.html
or contact Steven C. Seideman, 2650 North Young Ave., Institute of Food
Science & Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704,
479-575-4221, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: You are encouraged to register by May 26, 2010. The
University of Arkansas has a $250 registration fee to cover the cost of
facilities, materials, speakers, and breaks. There is no fee for FDA
employees. Seats are limited; please submit your registration as soon
as possible. Course space will be filled in order of receipt of
registration. Those accepted into the course will receive confirmation.
Registration will close after the course is filled. Registration at the
site is not guaranteed but may be possible on a space available basis
on the day of the public workshop beginning at 8 a.m. The cost of
registration at the site is $350 payable to: ``The University of
Arkansas.'' If you need special accommodations due to a disability,
please contact Steven C. Seideman (see Contact) at least 14 days in
advance.
    To register, please visit http://www.uark.edu/ua/foodpro/Workshops/Food_Safety_Defense_Workshop.html to register online or submit a
check or money order for $250 payable to the ``The University of
Arkansas.'' Mail to: Institute of Food Science & Engineering,
University of Arkansas, 2650 North Young Ave., Fayetteville, AR 72704
along with the following information: Your name, affiliation, mailing
address, phone number, fax, e-mail, and whether special accommodations
are required.
    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop will not be
available due to the format of this workshop. Workshop handouts may be
requested at cost through the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville,
MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a
cost of 10 cents per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public workshop is being held in
response to the large volume of food protection concerns from food
establishments (such as farms, manufacturers, processors, distributors,
retailers, and restaurants) originating from the area covered by the
FDA Dallas District Office. The SWRO presents this workshop to help
achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which include
working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and
clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. This is
consistent with the purposes of the Small Business Representative
Program, which are in part to respond to industry inquiries, develop
educational materials, sponsor workshops and conferences to provide
firms, particularly small businesses, with firsthand working knowledge
of FDA's guidance, requirements, and compliance policies. This workshop
is also consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), as outreach activities by
Government agencies to small businesses.
    The goal of this public workshop is to present information that
will enable food establishments (such as farms, manufacturers,
processors, distributors, retailers, and restaurants) to better comply
with any regulations authorized by the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism
Act) relevant to such establishments, and to be aware of
recommendations in food protection guidance, especially in light of
growing concerns about food safety and defense. Information presented
will be based on regulations, guidances, and information previously
made available to the public. Topics to be discussed at the workshop
include: (1) Food defense programs, (2) good manufacturing practices,
(3) reportable food registry, (4) Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP), (5) good agricultural practices, (6) food recalls, (7)
pathogens of public health concern, and (8) risk management and
vulnerability assessments and other related topics. For more
information, please visit http://www.uark.edu/ua/foodpro/Workshops/Food_Safety_Defense_Workshop.html. FDA expects that participation in
this public workshop will provide regulated industry with greater
understanding of the regulatory and guidance perspectives on food
protection and increase voluntary compliance and food defense
awareness.

    Dated: May 3, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-10792 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19383-19385]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2005-UT-0001; UT-001-0052a; EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0564; EPA-
R08-OAR-2005-UT-0006; FRL-8300-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Utah; State Implementation Plan Corrections

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections.

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

SUMMARY: When EPA approved Utah's Rule Recodification on February 14,
2006, we inadvertently incorporated by reference rules into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). When EPA approved Utah's Continuous Emission
Monitoring Program on May 15, 2003, we inadvertently failed to remove
the older version of the Continuous Emission Monitoring Program rule
from the SIP. When EPA approved Revisions to the Utah Administrative
Code on November 1, 2006, we inadvertently incorporated by reference
incorrect state rules. Finally, when EPA approved Carbon Monoxide
provisions for Provo, we inadvertently failed to remove the older
version of Control Measures For Area and Point Sources--Carbon
Monoxide--Provo. EPA is correcting these errors with this document.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone (303) 312-
6493, and e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Correction
    a. Rule Recodification
    b. Continuous Emission Monitoring Program
    c. Revisions to the Utah Administrative Code
    d. Carbon Monoxide Provisions for Provo
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The word State means the State of Utah, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) and (d)(3), provides that, when an agency for good cause
finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary
or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comments.

Section 553(d)(3) provides that prior notice is not required with good
cause. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's
rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because
we are merely correcting incorrect text in previous rulemakings. Thus,
notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary. We find that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3).

I. Correction

a. Rule Recodification

    On November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66264), EPA approved the removal of Rule
R307-301 from the Federally-approved SIP as part of Utah's
Redesignation of Provo to Attainment of the Carbon Monoxide standard.
When EPA approved Utah's Rule Recodification on February 14, 2006 (71
FR 7679), Rules R307-301-1, R307-301-2, and R307-301-4 through R307-
301-14 were inadvertently incorporated by reference back into Utah's
federally-approved SIP. This corrections rule simply removes the
following from 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(59)(i)(A): ``R307-301-1, R307-301-2,
and R307-301-4 through R307-301-14 effective November 12, 1998.''
    Furthermore, on February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), EPA inadvertently
incorporated by reference Rule R307-302-2(4). In the proposed rule on
October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59681), page 59684 clearly states EPA is
approving Rule R307-302 with the exception of rule section R307-302-
2(4). Currently 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(59)(i)(A) contains the following
phrase: ``R307-302-1, R307-302-2 and R307-302-4 effective September 15,
1998.'' This corrections rule simply revises the phrase to read as
follows: ``R307-302-1, R302-302-2 (except paragraph (4)) and R307-302-4
effective September 15, 1998.''

b. Continuous Emission Monitoring Program

    On December 14, 1994 (59 FR 64326), EPA approved Rule R307-1-4.06,
``Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Program (CEMSP).'' When EPA
approved a revision to Utah's Continuous Emission Monitoring Program
(CEM), Rule R307-170 on May 15, 2003 (68 FR 26210), Rule R307-1-4.06
was superseded and replaced but was not removed from Utah's federally-
approved SIP. This action simply removes Rule R307-1-4.06 from Utah's
federally-approved SIP.

c. Revisions to the Utah Administrative Code

    On November 1, 2006 (71 FR 64125), EPA approved changes to Rules
R307-170-7(1); R307-170-4; R307-170-5(7); R307-170-7(6), R307-170-
7(6)(a) and (b); and R307-170-9 sections (5)(a) and (b), (6)(b),
(7)(b), and (9)(a). There is a typographical error and Rule R307-170-
9(5)(b) should have been Rule R307-170-9(5)(d), which removes a
duplicate ``and'' from Utah's rule. In addition, revisions to Rules
R307-170-5(1)(b) and R307-170-9(7)(a)(i) should have been included in
the November 1, 2006 approval. Rule R307-170-5(1)(b) deletes an ``a''
and adds an ``A''. Rule R307-170-9(7)(a)(i) deletes a space and adds a
dash (``-''). Currently 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(64)(i)(A) reads: ``Utah
Administrative Code sections: R307-170-7(1); 307-170-4; R307-170-5(7);
R307-170-7(6); R307-170-7(6)(a) and (b); and in R307-170-9 sections
(5)(a) and (b), (6)(b), (7)(b), and (9)(a); effective January 5,
2006.'' This action simply corrects 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(64)(i)(A) to read
as follows: ``Utah Administrative Code sections: R307-170-7(1); 307-
170-4; R307-170-5(1)(b); R307-170-5(7); R307-170-7(6); R307-170-7(6)(a)
and (b); and in R307-170-9 sections (5)(a) and (d), (6)(b), (7)(a)(i),
(7)(b), and (9)(a); effective January 5, 2006.''

d. Carbon Monoxide Provisions for Provo

    On June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), EPA approved Utah SIP Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources--Carbon Monoxide--Provo--Section
IX.C.6. When EPA approved Section IX.C.6--Carbon Monoxide Provisions
for Provo on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66264) EPA inadvertently failed to
remove the older SIP Section IX.C.6 from Utah's federally-approved SIP.
This action simply removes the June 25, 2003 approved version of Utah
SIP Control Measures for Area and Point Sources--Carbon Monoxide--
Provo--Section IX.C.6 from Utah's federally-approved SIP because it has
been replaced by a newer version.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Because the
agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not subject to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202
and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104-4, 209 Stat. 48 (1995)). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA.
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal Standard.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. This rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issues under the Executive Order. This ruled does not impose
an

information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public comment
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement, 5
U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause
finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective
date of May 18, 2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. These corrections
to the identification of plan for Utah are not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 9, 2007.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart TT--UTAH

0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(59)(i)(A) by removing the phrase ``R307-301-1,
R307-301-2, and R307-301-4 through R307-301-14 effective November 12,
1998;'' and by revising the phrase that reads ``R307-302-1, R307-302-2
and R307-302-4 effective September 15, 1998'' to read ``R307-302-1,
R302-302-2 (except paragraph (4)) and R307-302-4 effective September
15, 1998.''
0
b. By revising paragraph (c)(64)(i)(A) as follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (64) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Utah Administrative Code sections: R307-170-7(1); 307-170-4;
R307-170-5(1)(b); R307-170-5(7); R307-170-7(6); R307-170-7(6)(a) and
(b); and in R307-170-9 sections (5)(a) and (d), (6)(b), (7)(a)(i),
(7)(b), and (9)(a); effective January 5, 2006.

0
3. Section 52.2352 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2352  Change to approved plan.

* * * * *
    (f) Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rule R307-1-4.06, Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems Program (CEMSP), is removed from Utah's
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). This rule has been superseded
and replaced by rule R307-170, Continuous Emission Monitoring Program.
 [FR Doc. E7-7201 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 28317]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4421-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4421-DR), dated March 23, 2019, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 10, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
March 23, 2019.

    Scott County for Individual Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-12829 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing to you as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises many significant issues and questions that are very important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions. Many of which I might like to respond to, and the FDA has asked for responses to many of the issues.

This is an enormous task as the issues are complex and require thorough review and analysis. My time to devote to researching and providing meaningful comments on these important questions is unfortunately limited.  The 75 day commenting periods fails to provide crucial time needed to provide thoughtful comments to the many issues raised the Proposed Rule.

Additionally assessing and evaluating alternative approaches to the Proposed Rule that are compatible with the FDA’s goal also raises significant challenges. Many of the questions raised will need research, and analysis of data. And much of this information has not been made available by the FDA. All of this can not be done within the FDA’s proposed time-frame. This will lead to less than adequate responses to the Proposed Rule.

I have already spent many hours researching the Proposed Rule- a 241 page document but all of this takes much time. The FDA had many years with which to make the Proposed Rule. Undoubtedly this time was necessary for preparing the proposed regulation. At the same time the public has only two and a half months to respond to the Proposed Rule.

While I very much appreciate the agency’s asking the public for their input on how to best to regulate e-cigarettes I do not think it’s too much to ask to allow the public to have more time to respond to the many questions. I don’t believe it is unreasonable to allow the public only six months to comment on it in return. Plus this is our only opportunity, as consumers of these products, to provide feedback.

I feel very passionate about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible tobacco. I believe e-cigarettes are a live saving device. It saved my life. Society should be celebrating this revolutionary technology because finally we now have the means to provide a product with which to significantly reduce smoking related diseases, and Cancer.

All people who smoke should have the opportunity to try using the best products the industry has to offer. While I believe in regulation I am greatly concerned that if the public is only allowed to use too highly regulated products this will not provide the public with the best products, and solutions to reducing and even halting smoking related illnesses.

I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I understand the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and look forward to discussing this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: December 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 244)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67974-67977]
[DOCID:fr22de09-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0863]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the
operation of the State Route (SR) 433 Swing Span Bridge across Bonfouca
Bayou, mile 7.0, at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD)
requested that the operating regulation of the SR 433 Swing Span Bridge
be changed in order to allow for signaled openings to begin later in
the mornings and later in the evenings during the months of daylight
savings time. This change allows the bridge to open on signal, except
that from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., from March 1 through October 30, the draw
shall open on signal if at least two hours' notice is given. From
November 1 through February 28 or 29, the bridge will revert to the
two-hour notice requirement from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.

DATES: This rule is effective December 22, 2009. Submit comments by
January 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0863 using one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard;
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:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard will consider all comments from the public before
issuing a Final Rule for this change. We encourage you to participate
in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0863), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the 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. If you submit a comment online via http://
www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-
mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0863'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change this rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0863'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation, West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim 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 it has been brought to the Coast
Guard's attention that recreational boaters are not easily able to
access their berthing facilities upstream of the bridge in the
afternoons because of the two-hour notice requirement that starts at 6
p.m. each day. Most recreational boaters who are underway at extended
distances from the bridge are unable to determine an exact time of
arrival at the bridge in order to request the required two-hour notice.
Others may not have long range VHF-FM radios capable of contacting the
bridge while underway at great distances from the bridge in order to
request the two-hour notice. Thus, many boaters are required to end
their activities early, several hours prior to sundown during the
months that daylight savings time is in effect, in order to get through
the bridge before 6 p.m. Additionally, the Coast Guard was provided a
copy of a letter to LDOTD from an individual, listing four businesses,
including his own, stating that the businesses are losing money from
boaters who are afraid of being restricted from returning to their
homes by the two-hour notice requirement. The Coast Guard finds good
cause to issue this interim final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment because the delay is impracticable and
unnecessary and not in the best public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The delay in publishing a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making and allowing 30 days for comments before
issuing a Final Rule will extend the hardship on the recreational
boater and the businesses upstream of the bridge. Recreational boaters
are not easily able to access their berthing facilities upstream of the
bridge in the afternoons because of the two-hour notice requirement
that starts at 6 p.m. each day. Most recreational boaters who are
underway at extended distances from the bridge are unable to determine
an exact time of arrival at the bridge in order to request the required
two-hour notice. Thus, many boaters are required to conclude their
activities earlier than necessary in order to get through the bridge
before 6 p.m. without a two-hour delay. Furthermore, businesses that
are located upstream of the bridge are suffering economically due to
the lack of recreational boaters who would normally patronize their
businesses if the boaters were able to get past the bridge later in the
afternoons without the two-hour delay.

Background and Purpose

    The LDOTD requested that the operating regulation of the SR 433
Swing Span Bridge across Bonfouca Bayou, mile 7.0 at Slidell, Louisiana
be changed in order to allow for signaled openings to begin later in
the mornings and later in the evenings during the months of daylight
savings time from March 1 through October 30 each year. LDOTD indicated
that extending the morning requirement for a two-hour notice by one
hour will not affect mariners passing through the bridge because few
mariners do so in the morning. Bridge tender logs indicate that more
recreational vessels transit the bridge during spring, summer and fall
months than during the winter months of November through February. The
logs also show that most of the recreational boaters do not signal for
an opening prior to 7 a.m. By extending the time for the bridge to open
on signal to 9 p.m., during the months of daylight savings time,
mariners are afforded the opportunity to extend their activities for
the full period of daylight each day. The additional hour requiring a
two-hour notice in the morning is advantageous to the bridge owner by
not having to continuously man the bridge for that additional hour.
    Presently, the bridge opens on signal, except that from 6 p.m. to 6
a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is
given. On Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need
not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45
p.m. to 2:45 p.m. This interim final rule allows the bridge to open on
signal, except that from March 1 through October 30, the regular
boating season, the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours
notice is given from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. During the winter months of
November 1 through February 28 or 29, the bridge will revert to the
two-hour notice requirement from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. To continue to
accommodate rush hour vehicular traffic the bridge will continue to
remain closed to navigation, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays,

from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule changes the time during which a mariner must request a
two-hour notice for the bridge to open, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., to 9
p.m. to 7 a.m. The reason for this change is to allow recreational
boaters a longer period of time to remain underway during daylight
hours during daylight savings time and be able to request an opening on
signal so that they can safely arrive at their berth before dark during
the regular boating season. The change will only affect the period from
March 1 through October 30 each year, the regular boating season.
During the period from November 1 through February 28 or 29, the bridge
will operate as it currently does, requiring a two-hour notice for
opening between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. The morning and
afternoon closure times of from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to
2:45 p.m. will remain unchanged. The Coast Guard will evaluate comments
received from the public before issuing a Final Rule for this change.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this interim 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. We expect the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
The boating public will benefit from the change by being allowed more
time to remain underway without having to pass through the bridge prior
to 6 p.m. The change will actually enhance the economic impact to
businesses upstream of the bridge. The rule change will not
inconvenience mariners in any way.

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 small entities. The small
entities that will be positively affected are: The owners of
recreational boats who normally transit the waterway out to Lake
Pontchartrain and four businesses that exist upstream of the bridge.
The businesses upstream of the bridge are expected to benefit from the
rule change because boaters will be able to transit the waterway and
access the facilities more easily.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 affect 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 would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
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
guides 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
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Section 117.433 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  117.433  Bonfouca Bayou.

    The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 7.0, at Slidell, shall open on
signal, except that from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. from November 1 through
February 28 or February 29, the draw shall open on signal if at least
two hours notice is given. From March 1 through October 30, from 9 p.m.
to 7 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is
given. On Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, throughout
the year, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels from 7 a.m.
to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    Dated: November 25, 2009.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-29750 Filed 12-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54623-54624]
[DOCID:fr26se07-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0886; FRL-8473-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Clean Air Interstate Rule Nitrogen Oxides Ozone Season Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Arkansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on August 10, 2007, enacted at
Regulation 19--Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution
Control; Chapter 14, Sections 19.1401-19.1404; and Chapter 15, Section
19.1501. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Ozone Season
Trading Program, promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently revised
on April 28 and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that
the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR NOX ozone season
requirements for Arkansas. Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP
approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan
(CAIR FIP) concerning NOX emissions for Arkansas. The CAIR
FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28,
2006 and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.
    The intended effect of this action is to reduce NOX
emissions from the State of Arkansas that are contributing to
nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or standard) in downwind states. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's proposal, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue
(6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is
(214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in
response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives relevant 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. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the
rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 18, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. E7-18964 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62529-62530]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-33-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-539); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-539 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import and
Export Related Applications) and submitting the information collection
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested
person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of
those comments to the Commission as explained below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due December 16,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0062, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Office.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC19-33-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 3, 2019 (84 FR 46005), the
Commission published a Notice in the Federal Register in Docket No.
IC19-33-000 requesting public comments. The Commission received no
comments and is noting that in the related submittal to OMB.
    Title: FERC-539 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import and Export
Related Applications).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0062.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-539 with no
changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On 10/29/2019, FERC submitted a request to OMB for an
emergency extension. On 10/31/2019, OMB granted a 2-month extension
for FERC-539.

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

    Abstract: Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (Pub. L. 75-688)
(15 U.S.C. 717-717w) provides, in part, that . . . no person shall
export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or
import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having
secured and order from the Commission authorizing it to do so. The 1992
amendments to Section 3 of the NGA concern importation or exportation
from/to a nation which has a free trade agreement with the United
States, and requires that such importation or exportation: (1) Shall be
deemed to be a first sale, i.e., not a sale for a resale, and (2) Shall
be deemed to be consistent with the public interest, and applications
for such importation or exportation shall be granted without
modification or delay.
    With the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement
and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the Federal regulatory focus on
construction, operation, and siting of import and export facilities
increased significantly.
    Estimate of Annual Burden.\2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \3\ for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. See 5
CFR 1320 for additional information on the definition of information
collection burden.
    \3\ The Commission staff estimates that industry is similarly
situated in terms of hourly cost (for wages plus benefits). Based on
the Commission's FY (Fiscal Year) 2019 average cost (for wages plus
benefits), $80.00/hour is used.

                                        FERC-539, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Number of
   Number of      responses per     Total number of     Average burden hours & average cost      Total annual burden hours & total         Cost per
  respondents       respondent         responses                 per response ($)                         annual cost ($)               respondent ($)
(1)                         (2)     (1) x (2) = (3)   (4)...................................  (3) x (4) = (5).......................    (5) / (1) = (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             6                2                  12   15 hours; $1,200......................  180 hours; $14,400....................             $2,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 5, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24568 Filed 11-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21848-21849]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08242]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10008-25-OW]

Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Charter for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will

be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee
which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the EFAB is
to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on
issues associated with environmental financing. It is determined that
the EFAB is in the public interest in connection with the performance
of duties imposed on the Agency by law. Inquiries may be directed to
Stephanie Sanzone, Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center,
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460 (Mail Code:
4204M), Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 9, 2020.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2020-08242 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P