[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2908-2911]
[FR Doc No: 2010-822]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61336; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-092]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 8.91--Limitations on Dealings
of DPMs and Affiliated Persons of DPMs

January 12, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 23, 2009, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 8.91--Limitations on
Dealings of DPMs and Affiliated Persons of DPMs. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the
Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item III 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
    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.91--Limitation on Dealings of DPMs
and Affiliated Persons of DPMs and Rule 8.93--e-DPM Obligations.
Specifically, CBOE proposes to delete all of existing Rule 8.91,
including the Guidelines for Exemptive Relief Under Rule 8.91(e) for
Members Affiliated with DPMs (``Guidelines for Exemptive Relief''), and
replace those provisions with the specific requirement applicable to e-
DPMs set forth in Rule 8.93(x) relating to the adoption of information
barriers and compliance with Rule 4.18. CBOE also proposes to adopt in
both Rule 8.91 and Rule 8.93 a limited exception for integrated market
making in broad-based, highly capitalized and liquid ETFs and trust
issued receipts (``TIRs'').
    CBOE Rule 8.91 and the Guidelines for Exemptive Relief under Rule
8.91 were adopted in 1999, although the provisions contained therein
were initially promulgated in 1987.\3\ Since that time, there have been
very few changes to Rule 8.91 and the Guidelines for Exemptive Relief.
Recently, members have requested that CBOE evaluate Rule 8.91 and the
Guidelines for Exemptive Relief to determine whether any changes would
be appropriate given that the rule has been in effect in its current
form for many years and the functions and responsibilities of DPMs have
changed over time. For example, in 2005 CBOE amended its rules to
eliminate the DPM's responsibility to act as agent in the options in
which it

is assigned.\4\ As a result, DPMs essentially act as market-makers in
their assigned classes, with higher quoting obligations than market-
makers and additional responsibilities for which they receive a
participation entitlement. Also, the prior restriction on Market-Makers
affiliated with a DPM holding an appointment and submitting electronic
quotations in an affiliated DPM's class has been eliminated (provided
CBOE uses an algorithm in the class that does not allocate trades, in
whole or in part, in an equal percentage based on the number of market
participants quoting at the best bid or offer).\5\ DPMs also can
request to operate away from CBOE's trading floor as an Off-Floor DPM,
similar to an e-DPM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43004 (6/30/00), 65
FR 43060 (7/12/00), approving SR-CBOE-98-54.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52798 (11/18/05), 70
FR 71344 (11/28/05), approving SR-CBOE-2005-46.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59539 (3/9/09), 74
FR 11143 (3/16/09), granting immediate effectiveness to SR-CBOE-
2009-015; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57742 (4/30/08), 73 FR
25067 (5/6/08), granting immediate effectiveness to SR-CBOE-2008-50.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57568 (3/26/08), 73
FR 18016 (4/2/08), granting immediate effectiveness to SR-CBOE-2008-
032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, CBOE established a new category of market-making
participant called e-DPMs, who are member organizations appointed to
operate on CBOE as competing DPMs/specialists in a broad number of
option classes.\7\ e-DPMs have specific obligations set forth in Rule
8.93, and are otherwise not subject to the provisions in Rule 8.91 and
the Guidelines for Exemptive Relief. Rather, under Rule 8.93(x), e-DPMs
are required to ``maintain information barriers that are reasonably
designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information with
any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business in option classes
allocated to the e-DPM or act as specialist or Market-Maker in any
security underlying options allocated to the e-DPM, and otherwise
comply with the requirements of Rule 4.18 regarding the misuse of
material non-public information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50003 (7/12/04), 69
FR 43028 (7/19/04), approving SR-CBOE-2004-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 4.18 requires all members (other than lessor members who are
not registered as broker-dealers) to establish, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
misuse of material, nonpublic information by such member or persons
associated with such member. For purposes of Rule 4.18, conduct
constituting the misuse of material non-public information includes,
but is not limited to: (i) Trading in any securities issued by a
corporation, partnership, TIR or ETF or similar entities, or in any
related securities or related options or other derivative securities,
while in possession of material, nonpublic information concerning that
corporation, partnership, TIR or ETF or similar entities; (ii) trading
in any underlying security or related options or other derivative
securities, while in possession of material, nonpublic information
concerning imminent transactions in the above; and (iii) disclosing to
another person or entity any material, non-public information involving
a corporation, partnership, TIR or ETF or similar entities or an
imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities
for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material,
non-public information. Rule 4.18 also requires members to establish,
maintain and enforce specific policies and procedures for compliance
with Rule 4.18.
    Given that the functions and obligations of DPMs and e-DPMs are
substantially similar, CBOE believes that it would be appropriate for
DPMs and e-DPMs to be subject to the same requirements relating to the
maintenance of information barriers with any affiliates that may
conduct a brokerage business \8\ in option classes allocated to the DPM
or act as a specialist or market-maker in any security underlying
options allocated to the DPM. CBOE also notes that DPMs do not have any
advantages regarding relevant trading information provided by the
Exchange vis-[agrave]-vis other members in their appointed classes.
Accordingly, CBOE proposes to delete the existing provisions in Rule
8.91 and the Guidelines for Exemptive Relief, and replace them with the
provisions in Rule 8.93(x) relating to the maintenance of information
barriers and compliance with Rule 4.18. Rule 8.91(a), as amended,
provides that a DPM shall provide its information barriers to the
Exchange and obtain prior written approval, which is consistent with
the current provisions of Rule 8.91(e).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The reference to ``brokerage business'' includes conducting
an investment banking business or a public securities business.
    \9\ If a DPM's ``Chinese Wall'' procedures were previously
approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 8.91(e), the procedures do
not need to be re-approved by the Exchange as a result of this rule
change unless the procedures are subsequently modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above, CBOE proposes to adopt an exception to
the requirement that a DPM or e-DPM in an option overlying a broad-
based and highly capitalized ETF or TIR is required to maintain
information barriers with any affiliate that acts as a specialist or
market-maker in the underlying broad-based ETF or TIR. CBOE notes that
this exception currently exists for CBSX DPMs and CBOE DPMs (see Rule
54.7), and believes it is consistent with what the SEC has previously
approved.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55392 (3/2/07), 72
FR 10572 (3/8/07), approving SR-CBOE-2006-112; Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54422 (9/11/06), 71 FR 54537 (9/15/06), approving
SR-CBOE-2004-21; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47200 (1/15/
03), 68 FR 3907 (1/27/03), approving SR-CBOE-2002-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the rule proposal is consistent with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act \12\ requirements that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Deleting
existing Rule 8.91 and replacing those provisions with the specific
requirement applicable to e-DPMs set forth in Rule 8.93(x) should
clarify the regulatory obligations of DPMs while retaining an
appropriate regulatory requirement relating to the adoption of
information barriers and compliance with CBOE Rule 4.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-092 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-092. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-092 and should be
submitted on or before February 9, 2010.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\13\ The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the requirement that DPMs
maintain certain specifically-prescribed information barriers as
described in CBOE Rule 8.91. In its place, the Exchange proposes to
amend CBOE Rule 8.91. Amended CBOE Rule 8.91 will continue to require
information barriers, but will permit a Designated Primary Market Maker
to develop and apply its own policies and procedures to, among other
things, prevent the misuse of material nonpublic information. CBOE Rule
8.91 addresses concerns arising from the potential for the sharing of
material non-public information between a DPM's market making
activities and other business activities of the DPM or its affiliates.
For instance, one such concern is that the DPM or affiliate engaging in
other business activities might use non-public information that was
acquired by the DPM through its role as a market maker, such as trading
based on information on the DPM's book. Another concern is that the DPM
might use material non-public information received from the entity
engaging in other business activities, such as trading based on a
change in the firm's buy or sell recommendation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58328 (August 7,
2008), 73 FR 48260 (August 18, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-45) (articulating
concerns in the context of approving changes to NYSE Rule 98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While amended CBOE Rule 8.91 will no longer prescribe the specific
information barriers a DPM must establish, the rule will require that
such information barriers be reasonably designed to prevent the misuse
of material non-public information by the member or persons associated
with the member. Amended CBOE Rule 8.91 also will explicitly reference
current CBOE Rule 4.18, which among other things, provides that the
misuse of material non-public information includes trading in a
security or related option or other derivative security while in
possession of material non-public information concerning imminent
transactions in the security, related option, or other derivative
securities.\16\ In addition, the proposed rule change requires that the
member provide a copy of its information barrier policies and
procedures to the Exchange for prior written approval. The Commission
believes that, with adequate oversight by the Exchange of its members
and prior review and approval of a DPM's information barrier, the
amendment of CBOE Rule 8.91 should not materially increase the
potential for the misuse of nonpublic information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CBOE Rule 4.18, Interpretations and Policies .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this proposal rule change, members may utilize the
flexible, principles-based approach to modify their information
barriers as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model,
business activities, or to the securities market itself. A member
should be proactive in assuring that its information barriers reflect
the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law
and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
    The Commission believes that the regulatory approach in this
proposed rule change is similar to the regulatory approach of NYSE
Arca, Inc. In particular, the CBOE approach, like the NYSE Arca
approach, does not require market makers to maintain certain
specifically-prescribed information barriers.\17\ Unlike NYSE Arca's
approach, however, CBOE's rules continue to require all DPMs to
maintain information barriers.\18\ The basis for this difference is
that NYSE Arca's market makers and Lead Market Makers do not have any
advantages regarding relevant trading information provided by NYSE
Arca, either at, or prior to, the point of execution vis-[agrave]-vis
other market participants. CBOE, on the other hand, represented only
that its DPMs do not have any advantages regarding relevant trading
information provided by the Exchange vis-[agrave]-vis other members in
their appointed classes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60604 (September 1,
2009), 74 FR 46272 (September 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78).
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ CBOE members have access to auctions that other market
participants do not, including, for example, the Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') (CBOE Rule 6.74A), and the
Solicitation Auction Mechanism (CBOE Rule 6.74B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE also proposes to exempt DPMs and e-DPMs in an option overlying
a broad-based ETF or TIR from the requirement to maintain barriers
between it and any affiliates that act as a specialist or market-maker
in the

underlying broad-based ETF or TIR, provided that the capitalization and
liquidity requirements for the component securities of the broad-based
ETF or TIR set forth in CBOE Rule 54.7, Interpretation and Policy .03
are satisfied. The Commission believes that this exemption to the
information barrier requirements is consistent with the Act. The
Commission notes that this exemption is currently available to CBSX
DPMs.\20\ In addition, CBOE Rule 54.7, Interpretation and Policy .03
contains capitalization and liquidity requirements for the component
securities of the broad-based ETFs and TIRs, which, together with the
proposed exemption, are consistent with what the Commission has
previously approved.\21\ As the Commission noted previously, these
capitalization and liquidity requirements for the component securities
should reduce the likelihood that any market participant has an unfair
informational advantage about the ETF, TIR, its related options, or its
component securities, or that a market participant would be able to
manipulate the prices of the ETFs, TIRs, or their related options.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See CBOE Rule 54.7(d).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54422 (September
11, 2006), 71 FR 54537 (September 15, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2004-21)
(approving CBOE Rule 54.7); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
46213 (July 16, 2002), 67 FR 48232 (July 23, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-21)
(permitting side-by-side trading and integrated market making in
broad-based ETFs and TIRs without information or physical barriers
or other restrictions).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46213 (July 16,
2002), 67 FR 48232 (July 23, 2002) (SR-Amex-2002-21) (permitting
side-by-side trading and integrated market making in broad-based
ETFs and TIRs without information or physical barriers or other
restrictions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\23\ for approving the proposed rule change prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal
Register. Although this proposed rule change does not require that DPMs
maintain certain specifically-prescribed information barriers, it does
require that DPMs establish and maintain information barriers that are
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities
law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. In addition,
the rule requires that such barriers be pre-approved by the Exchange.
The revised rule thus does not represent a significant change from the
current rule, and is at least as stringent as the approach currently
employed by NYSE Arca and Nasdaq.\24\ The Commission believes that,
with Exchange approval and oversight, elimination of prescriptive
information barrier requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of
the CBOE rules which would now permit a DPM to develop and apply its
own policies and procedures to, among other things, prevent the misuse
of material nonpublic information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (Jan. 13,
2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (adopting Nasdaq IM-2110-2; IM-
2110-3; IM-2110-4, and Rule 3010); see also supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\25\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-092) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-822 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


50143 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2003 / Notices TABLE 4.   AGGREGATE EXPOSURE OF DIMETHOMORPH ( BAS 550 F)   Continued Exposure Infants ( 0   1 years) Children ( 1   6 years) Males ( 20   49 years) Females ( 13   49 years)

Chronic exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 0.001265 0.000843 0.000361 0.000402 % aRfD and % aPAD NA NA NA NA % cRfD and % cPAD 25.30 16.87 7.23 8.03 AGGREGATE Acute exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 0.174865 0.166243 0.064221 0.073462 Chronic exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 0.009237 0.015963 0.007214 0.008173 % aRfD and % aPAD NA NA NA NA % cRfD and % cPAD 33.27 31.99 14.08 15.80 These results indicate the aggregate exposure of dimethomorph ( BAS 550 F), from potential residues in food and drinking water, will not exceed EPA's level of concern ( 100% of RfD). Overall, considering a `` worst case'' scenario, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from either acute or chronic aggregate exposure of dimethomorph residues in the current and pending commodities. 3. Non dietary exposure. Currently, there are no registered residential uses for dimethomorph in the United States. Thus, an assessment of non dietary exposure is not relevant to this petition.

D. Cumulative Effects There is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by dimethomorph would be cumulative with those of any other chemical. The fungicidal mode of action of dimethomorph is unique; dimethomorph inhibits cell wall formation only in Oomycete fungi. The result is lysis of the cell wall that kills growing cells and inhibits spore formation in mature hyphae. This unique mode of action and limited pest spectrum suggest that there is little or no potential for cumulative toxic effects in mammals. In addition, the toxicity studies submitted to support this petition do not indicate that dimethomorph is a particularly toxic compound. No toxic end points of potential concern were identified.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Based on the acute toxicity data, BASF believes that dimethomorph does not pose any acute dietary risks. Therefore, a calculation of an acute RfD is not needed. The cPAD is 0.1 mg/ kg bwt/ day, based on a NOAEL of approximately 10 mg/ kg bwt/ day ( 200 ppm) from a 2   year dietary toxicity study in rats that demonstrated decreased body weight and liver foci in females at 750 ppm. The cPAD is calculated using an uncertainty factor of 100. The theoretical maximum residue concentration ( TMRC) for all commodities covered in this petition is estimated at 0.003 mg/ kg bwt/ day for the general population. This represents a dietary exposure to the general population of the United States that is 3.0% of the cPAD. The combined TMRC for all current and pending dimethomorph tolerances in potatoes, tomatoes, grapes, hops, cereal grain commodities, lettuce ( head and leaf), endive ( escarole), radichio, cucurbit vegetables ( crop group 9), bulb vegetables ( crop group 3), and fruiting vegetables ( except cucurbits) ( crop group 8) will utilize less than 10% of the cPAD for the general U. S. population. Since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100 percent of the cPAD, EPA should conclude that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues in or on commodities of the cited crops. 2. Infants and children. The TMRC for all commodities covered in this petition is minimal. The consumption of residues of dimethomorph on commodities associated with this request will use approximately 7.0% of the cPAD for children ages 1   6. Moreover, the combined TMRC values for all current and pending dimethomorph tolerances will utilize less than 10% of the cPAD for each of the subgroups. The results of the studies submitted to support this package provide no evidence that dimethomorph caused reproductive, developmental or fetotoxic effects. No such effects were noted at dose levels that were not maternally toxic. The NOAELs observed in the developmental and reproductive studies were 6 to 65 times higher than the NOAEL used to establish the cPAD. There is no evidence to indicate that children or infants would be more sensitive than adults to toxic effects caused by exposure to dimethomorph. Therefore, the registrant believes that the results of the toxicology and metabolism studies support both the safety of dimethomorph to humans based on the intended use as a fungicide on domestically produced fruiting vegetables ( except cucurbits) ( crop group 8) and the granting of the requested tolerances.

F. International Tolerances.

There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex maximum residue levels established for dimethomorph for the commodities associated with this request; consequently, a discussion of international harmonization is not relevant. [ FR Doc. 03   20899 Filed 8   19   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0222; FRL   7316   3]

Issuance of Experimental Use Permits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMMARY: EPA has granted experimental use permits ( EUP) to the following pesticide applicants. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 06 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20AUN1. SGM 20AUN1 50144 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 2003 / Notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 69592   EUP   1: Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8077; e mail address: cerrelli. susanne@ epa. gov, or For 70515   EUP   3: Carol E. Frazer, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8810; e mail address: frazer. carol@ epa. gov. 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. If you have any questions regarding the information in this action, consult the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0222. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. EUP EPA has issued the following EUPs: 1. 69592   EUP   1. Issuance. AgraQuest, Inc, 1530 Drew Ave., Davis, CA 95616. This EUP allows the use of 2,371.2 pounds of the fungicide Bacillus pumilus strain QST2808 on 3,955 total acres of brassica, bulb vegetables, cereal grains, cucurbits, fields of roses, forestry, fruiting vegetables, grapes, grass seed, hops, landscape, leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, mint, peanuts, pome fruits, root/ tuber vegetables, stone fruits, strawberries, and sugarbeets to obtain phytotoxicity data over a large geographical area and to evaluate the control of various plant pathogens including: Bremia lactucae, Cercospora spp., Erysiphe spp., Oidiopsis taurica, Peronospora parasitica, Puccinia spp., Sclerotinia spp., Sphaerotheca macularis, Uncinula necator, Uromyces phaseoli, and Phytophthora spp. The program is authorized only in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The EUP is effective from June 6, 2003 to June 30, 2005. A temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus pumilus strain QST2808 in or on all agricultural commodities has been established. 2. 70515   EUP   3. Issuance. Nutra Park Inc., 3225 Deming Way, Suite 140, Middleton, WI 53562. This EUP allows the use of 220 gallons of the growth regulator NPI 100 10EC ( containing the active ingredient lysophosphatidylethanolamine ( LPE)) on 5,000 acres of apples, apricots, avocados, bananas, blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries, cherries, coffee, crabapples, cranberries, currants, eggplant, grapefruits, grapes, kiwis, lemons, limes, mandarins, mangos, mineolas, oranges, peaches, pears, peppers, pimentos, pineapples, plums, pomegranates, pummelos, raspberries, strawberries, tangelos, tangerines, and tomatoes to evaluate the control of ripening and shelf life. The program is authorized only in the States of Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005. An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance has been established for residues of the active ingredient in or on all food commodities.

Authority: 7 U. S. C. 136c.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

Dated: August 8, 2003. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   21353 Filed 8   19   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7546   6]

Proposed Agreement Pursuant to Sections 122( g) and ( h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for the Chemical Recovery Systems Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA''). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment on proposed de minimis settlement.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122( i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (`` CERCLA''), 42 U. S. C. 9622( i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of response costs concerning the Chemical Recovery Systems Superfund Site in Elyria, Ohio. EPA proposes to enter into this agreement under the authority of sections 122( g) and ( h) and 107 of CERCLA. In addition to the review by the public pursuant to this document, the agreement has been approved by the United States Department of Justice. The proposed agreement has been executed by the following eighty three ( 83) de minimis parties: 3M Company Adelphia, Inc. Aexcel Corporation ( f/ k/ a DeSantis Coatings)

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 06 Aug 19, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20AUN1. SGM 20AUN1


National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Meeting (Teleconference)
                          Thursday, December 19, 2013
                         12:00 p.m.  -  4:00 p.m. EST

William Jefferson Clinton Building East, Room 1132
                         1201 Constitution Avenue, NW
                               Washington, D.C.

Meeting Summary (Final)

Welcome, Introductions and Overview of the Agenda
Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Denise Benjamin-Sirmons, Director, Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (ODACMO), EPA;
Cynthia Jones-Jackson, Deputy Director, ODACMO, EPA; and
William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

Mr. Mark Joyce (NACEPT Acting DFO) welcomed the Council members participating via teleconference. He expressed his appreciation to the NACEPT workgroup members for their diligent efforts in meeting a challenging deadline to produce an excellent draft of comments in response to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-2018 EPA Draft Strategic Plan. The workgroup was chaired by Mr. Howard Learner (NACEPT Vice-Chair; Environmental Law and Policy Center), and he was assisted by workgroup members Mr. Robert Kerr (Pure Strategies, Inc.), Dr. Ronald Meissen (Baxter International, Inc.), Dr. Olufemi Osidele (Southwest Research Institute) and Ms. Alison Taylor (Siemens Corporation). Mr. Joyce emphasized that the Agency welcomes the Council's comments, and the draft highlights several key issues for consideration. He explained that the purpose of the call was to discuss the draft letter and incorporate any additional material or revisions deemed appropriate by the Council members. The goal of the meeting was to approve the advice letter so it could be sent forward to the Administrator after the final revisions.

Mr. Joyce explained that during the meeting, the NACEPT members could raise and discuss any substantive issues with the content of the draft comments. Provided that the Council members agree on the proposed substantive revisions, the letter could be approved, adopted and submitted to the Administrator. All editorial changes would be completed prior to finalizing the letter.

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson also commended the Council members, especially Mr. Learner and the drafting team, for their hard work and quick turnaround in producing the advice letter. She thanked Mr. William Ross, Jr. (NACEPT Chair; Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University) and Mr. Learner for their leadership. Ms. Jones-Jackson informed the Council members that she would be retiring on December 31, 2013, and this was to be her final NACEPT meeting. She thanked all of the Council members for their accomplishments, and she expressed confidence that the excellent work would continue. She noted that it had been a pleasure and an honor to work with each NACEPT member. Ms. Jones-Jackson explained that her father's health problems as well as some health issues of her own led to this decision, and she was ready to open a new chapter in her life and career.

Mr. Ross thanked Ms. Jones-Jackson for her assistance and leadership with the Council, and he expressed well wishes for her health and future. He mentioned that during her 40 years with the federal service following her cum laude graduation from Howard University, Ms. Jones-Jackson had been a terrific leader in many diversity outreach engagements. On behalf of the Council, Mr. Ross reiterated his best wishes and thanked Ms. Jones-Jackson for her outstanding service. Mr. Learner and other Council members present echoed Mr. Ross' comments, and Ms. Jones-Jackson thanked the Council members for their encouraging words.

Mr. Eugene Green (ODACMO, EPA) called the roll and noted the public attendees for the record. Having exceeded the quorum of 11 members, the Council began deliberations on the comments. Given that the members were participating by teleconference, Mr. Ross reminded the participants to identify themselves prior to speaking. He encouraged all of the attendees to provide feedback on the letter, including comments, observations or questions about the content as written.

Mr. Joyce stated that the final date for submission of public comments in response to the Draft Strategic Plan is January 3, 2014. The NACEPT's final draft is due back to Mr. Joyce by December 30, 2013, to allow time to introduce the letter into the control correspondence system and official docket.

Discussion of NACEPT Comments on the FY 2014-2018 EPA Draft Strategic Plan
Howard Learner, NACEPT Vice-Chair, Executive Director, Environmental Law and Policy, Chicago, IL; Workgroup Members; and NACEPT Members

Mr. Learner recognized the workgroup members for their efforts in developing an expedited response to the Strategic Plan. He welcomed suggestions for improving the existing content of the letter as well as additional points that should be included. The Council reviewed the draft letter, page by page, and the comments are summarized below.

Page 1:

Mr. Joyce stated that the first line should read: "National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology." He noted several additional editorial corrections, which he agreed to send to Mr. Learner in a tracked-changes document following the meeting.

Mr. Ross commented that he was pleased that sustainability was woven frequently into different elements of the Draft Strategic Plan, which reflects many previous NACEPT recommendations (as well as recommendations on endocrine disruptors). He recommended that the Council incorporate a sentence into one of the opening paragraphs of the advice letter praising the Draft Strategic Plan. Mr. Learner suggested that the following sentence be added to the end of the first paragraph: "We believe this draft FY 2014-2018 Draft Strategic Plan points in the right direction and provides an effective strategic course moving forward." Mr. Learner sent the sentence to Mr. Ross via email for review and amendment.

Ms. Bridgett Luther (Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute) suggested adding a comment to encourage the inclusion of the NACEPT's definition of sustainability within the Draft Strategic Plan. Mr. Learner commented that the Agency appeared to have decided against adopting a specific definition of sustainability in favor of reflecting sustainable principles in various strategies throughout the plan. He recommended that the Council refrain from pushing the Agency to adopt its definition of sustainability. Mr. Learner mentioned that the Council could include a reference to a previous advice letter on sustainability for the Agency to consider as it finalizes the Draft Strategic Plan. Ms. Luther thought it would be a good idea to reinforce the NACEPT's definition of sustainability. Mr. Ross expressed support for the inclusion of a definition of sustainability in the introduction, which drove the Strategic Plan process. Mr. Learner suggested including the following sentence: "We appreciate the Administrator's consideration of the NACEPT's earlier advice letter on sustainability and the recommendations provided therein," including the specific date and exact name of the advice letter referenced. Ms. Luther agreed with the suggested solution.  All agreed.

Page 2:

Mr. Ross suggested that the "APG" acronym be spelled out as "Agency Priority Goals" upon first mention.

Mr. Ross noted that the end of the second bullet includes a discussion of the sustainability cross-cutting strategy, and he suggested that another APG be included to develop and implement the sustainability action plans that would encourage sustainability progress for each of the five goal areas. Mr. Kerr commented that a goal related to sustainability indicators was referenced on page 50 of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Ross explained that a new Cross-Program: Sustainability APG was described on page 86, which read: "Advance sustainability by collaborating with a broad range of stakeholders to select sustainability indicators that can be widely understood and that can help drive the diverse public and private actions that are essential for achieving the long-term environmental quality." Mr. Kerr mentioned that it would be challenging to determine how sustainable principles could be implemented within the Agency's rigid regulatory responsibilities. Mr. Ross acknowledged his concern, but explained that the Agency can determine the best way to address the challenge. Adding the sustainability APG would provide another performance goal to advance sustainability within the Agency, and it deserves to be presented with the other APGs instead of being relegated to an asterisk on the final page of the Draft Strategic Plan. A participant agreed with Mr. Ross that establishing a goal that relies on the achievement and alignment of the other five goals is a smart way to proceed to help EPA transition from the traditional focus on regulation to the broader principles of sustainability. Later, Mr. Ross referenced page 48 of the Sustainability Plan, which read: "For each of these strategies, the Agency will develop annual action plans with commitments that align with existing planning, budget, and accountability processes, and that support EPA's research and development agenda as appropriate." Mr. Ross suggested that annual action plans be required as a performance goal. Mr. Learner suggested adding the following sentence to the end of the second bullet: "The Agency also considers the possibility of making sustainability a specific APG for those areas of decision making where EPA has sufficient regulatory discretion and in its non-regulatory programs." He sent preliminary language to Mr. Ross via email and welcomed any revisions.

Mr. Learner noted that he was incorporating changes into the NACEPT advice letter during the discussion and would send the revised document to the Council members via email. He requested that any purely editorial comments be sent to him following the meeting.

Page 3:

Mr. Kurt Erichsen (Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments) appreciated the comment about the need to mention city and community planning in Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan (second bullet). A key consideration is repurposing and reuse of core city land, which relates directly to sustainability.

Mr. Erichsen noted that one issue missing from Goal 2 (first bullet) is an acknowledgement of harmful algal blooms, such as those that occur on Lake Erie. In the past, algal blooms were viewed as an ecological nuisance and water quality problem, but the toxins also threaten water safety and supplies. Mr. Learner suggested that Mr. Erichsen develop a sentence about how EPA can address algal blooms and nitrate pollution, with a reference to Lake Erie similar to the reference to Chicago in the next bullet. Mr. Erichsen clarified that the Great Lakes are referenced on page 70 of the Strategic Plan with regard to safe water. Previously, E. coli have been an issue with water safety, but toxins add a new dimension to safe water. Mr. Erichsen agreed to provide Mr. Learner with language to include on page 3, Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters of the NACEPT advice letter. Mr. Learner suggested that the language read: "In addition, the Obama administration has made restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem a priority strategy and focus for action. There are both longstanding historic pollution problems that need to be addressed and newly emerging problems such as algal blooms." Mr. Learner solicited Mr. Erichsen's email address and sent him the updated draft NACEPT advice letter.

Ms. Luther commended the acknowledgment of hazards in Goal 4.

Dr. Fernando Abruña (Sustainable Architecture) noted that light pollution was not addressed in the Sustainability Plan, and he suggested that it be reflected in the NACEPT's comments as light pollution is an issue in both cities and rural areas. Mr. Learner asked if light pollution should be a priority for the Agency. Mr. Ross stated that light pollution could be added to the bullet on promoting sustainable and livable communities, and Dr. Abruña indicated that it would be a good fit in Goal 3 or the following bullet (after the Chicago example of clean energy) on page 3 of the NACEPT advice letter. Mr. Learner agreed to modify the text on page 3 to read: "...transportation options, light pollution, and parks, open space and healthy foods." [Note:  Mr. Learner and Mr. Ross later realized that this particular edit was not appropriate because it would be modifying what the City of Chicago had identified as its priorities.]

Page 4:

Mr. Ross suggested the inclusion of another cross-cutting strategy related to partnerships. EPA is entering a new era of state, local and tribal partnerships. He noted that the cross-cutting strategy would be more powerful if it included additional categories of partnerships, such as collaborations with other federal agencies (e.g., the Department of Defense [DOD]) and regional partnerships, which already have demonstrated effectiveness. Many regional efforts could benefit from EPA's active increase in support and participation. Mr. Kerr agreed with the suggestion and also recommended augmenting the list of partnerships on page 50 of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Ross emphasized that partnerships help EPA accomplish its sustainability goals. Mr. Learner commented that a useful place to reference the importance of partnerships would be in the cross-cutting strategy of communities, which could recognize the interagency Partnership of Sustainable Communities, comprised of EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Ross agreed to draft a bullet following the meeting to indicate the importance of adding additional categories of partnerships to the cross-cutting strategy on partnerships. The text will be added to page 4 of the NACEPT advice letter, following the bullet on nanomaterials.

Ms. Luther commented on the use of "should" and "could" throughout the NACEPT advice letter. She suggested changing the language to "should" in the penultimate ("EPA should work with many groups...") and final bullet on page 4 ("EPA should consider...") to strengthen the recommendations. Mr. Learner explained that the intent was to advise rather than direct the Administrator, and "could" was chosen deliberately instead of "must" or "should" in several places. Mr. Kerr noted that "should consider" was present throughout the advice letter already. Mr. Ross declared that the word selection be left to the discretion of the drafting team for case-by-case consideration, and Mr. Learner agreed to review the advice letter for consistent usage of the words throughout.

Dr. Osidele suggested emphasizing the importance of research to the penultimate bullet on page 4 that addressed education. For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) program launched a research program to investigate sustainable topics, which was successful in accelerating university research. Dr. Meissen suggested that rather than replace an example present in the bullet, the NSF illustration could be added to the bullet to indicate how engineering and sustainability programs could be supported by research. Mr. Learner supported including the additional example, and Dr. Osidele agreed to provide the text to be added

Ms. Ondrea Barber (Gila River Indian Community) sent several comments by email to Mr. Learner, who noted that the second issue raised could not be addressed easily in several sentences. He agreed that tribes should be added to references of states and cities, and he incorporated those revisions on page 3 of the NACEPT advice letter. Ms. Barber stated that tribes will be sending a separate comment letter in response to the Draft Strategic Plan.

Public Comments
William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

Mr. Ross called for public comments and none were offered.

Concluding Announcements and Next Steps
William Ross, Jr., NACEPT Chair, Visiting Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University

Mr. Ross reflected that there appeared to be a concurrence of support for submission of the advice letter with the changes discussed, with the understanding that Mr. Learner and the drafting team would endeavor to incorporate the revisions, finalize the advice letter and send it to Mr. Joyce by
December 30, 2013. Mr. Ross asked if any NACEPT members were uncomfortable proceeding with the advice letter as drafted, and no concerns were raised. Mr. Ross commended Mr. Learner for his excellent leadership in completing the draft letter during the busy holiday season. He also expressed gratitude to the workgroup for their efforts.

Mr. Learner noted that the new draft incorporates comments made by the NACEPT members during the meeting and indicates where additional text should be inserted. As soon as he receives the necessary text from Mr. Joyce, Mr. Ross, Dr. Osidele and Mr. Erichsen, he will perform a final edit to ensure consistency throughout the document and send the draft to the Council members for review. Mr. Joyce added that a final review will be conducted by ODACMO staff to ensure the letter is free from factual and editorial errors.

Ms. Jones-Jackson thanked the participants for their efforts and introduced Ms. Denise Benjamin-Sirmons, ODACMO Director. Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons echoed the appreciation for the Council members' excellent work under the expedited timeframe. She commented that she has reviewed previous NACEPT reports and is relying on one now as she works to develop the Agency's diversity and inclusion efforts. Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons wished the participants happy holidays and said that she was eager to work with the Council in the coming year. Mr. Ross added that the NACEPT members were looking forward to working with Ms. Benjamin-Sirmons. He encouraged the ODACMO staff to consider funding a face-to-face meeting for the NACEPT in the coming year, as teleconferences can be challenging.

Ms. Jones-Jackson publically recognized the ODACMO staff, including Mr. Joyce, Ms. Stephanie McCoy and Mr. Green, for their efforts. She underscored the diligent efforts that are required to plan Council meetings and work closely with each workgroup to develop recommendations and advice for the Administrator. Ms. Jones-Jackson also expressed appreciation to The Scientific Consulting Group contractor, Dr. Jennifer McCulley, for producing the NACEPT meeting summaries.

Mr. Joyce provided an update on the NACEPT's Advice Letter on the Social Pillar of Sustainability. He noted that the Council is awaiting further guidance from the Agency about the focus of the advice letter, which likely will be provided early in the new year.

Mr. Green explained that the NACEPT membership process was lengthy, and although it had been initiated during the summer, the government shutdown delayed the process. The current Council terms end on February 24, 2014. Mr. Green anticipates that the membership process will be finalized in February 2014, following the Administrator's approval.

Dr. Osidele moved to adopt the advice letter with the changes discussed. The motion was seconded, and the motion to accept the advice letter passed unanimously.

The NACEPT members wished each other happy holidays and expressed appreciation for each other's contributions to the Council's efforts.

Mr. Joyce requested that Mr. Ross and Mr. Learner remain on the call following the adjournment to discuss administrative matters, including the timing and finalization of the advice letter.

Mr. Ross asked for any final thoughts or observations. There being none, he adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. EST.
Action Items

   oo    Mr. Learner will incorporate the discussion comments and revisions into the draft advice letter.

   oo    NACEPT members will send any additional suggestions for specific word changes for the draft advice letter to Mr. Learner by December 20, 2013. These comments/revisions should be in the form of a tracked changes document.

   oo    Mr. Learner will incorporate the changes and distribute a final copy to the Council members for review.

   oo    The NACEPT will finalize the advice letter and send it to Mr. Joyce by December 30, 2013, to allow processing time prior to the January 3, 2014, deadline for public comments.

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
                             Meeting Participants

NACEPT Members

Dr. Fernando Abruña
Architect
Sustainable Architecture
Abruña and Musgrave, Architects
San Juan, PR

Ms. Ondrea Barber
Executive Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Gila River Indian Community
Sacaton, AZ

Mr. John P. DeVillars
Managing Partner
BlueWave Capital, LLC
TRC Companies, Inc.
Boston, MA

Mr. Kurt Erichsen
Vice President
Environmental Planning
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments
Toledo, OH

Ms. Deeohn Ferris
President
Sustainable Community Development Group
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Robert Kerr
Co-Founder and Principal
Pure Strategies, Inc.
Reston, VA

Mr. Howard Learner (NACEPT Vice-Chair)
Executive Director
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Chicago, IL

Ms. Bridgett Luther
President
Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute
San Francisco, CA

Dr. Ronald Meissen
Senior Director of Sustainability
Baxter International, Inc.
Deerfield, IL

Dr. Olufemi Osidele
Senior Research Engineer
Geosciences and Engineering Division
Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, TX

Dr. Edith A. Parker
Professor and Head
Department of Community and Behavioral Health
College of Public Health
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

Mr. William G. Ross (NACEPT Chair)
Visiting Professor
Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University
Durham, NC

Mr. Yalmaz Siddiqui
Senior Director
Environmental Strategy
Office Depot
Boca Raton, FL

NACEPT Acting Designated Federal Officer
Mr. Mark Joyce
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (ODACMO)
William Jefferson Clinton Building (1601M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA Participants
Denise Benjamin-Sirmons
Director, ODACMO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (1601M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Eugene Green
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (1601M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cynthia Jones-Jackson
Deputy Director, ODACMO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (1601M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Stephanie McCoy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Jefferson Clinton Building (1601M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Other Participants
Mike Kendall
Team Leader
Atwell, LLC
Charleston, TN

David LaRoss
Inside EPA
Washington, D.C.
Bob Oliphint
Luminant Power
Dallas, TX

Justin Vickers
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Chicago, IL

Contractor Support
Jennifer McCulley
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.
656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210
Gaithersburg, MD  20878
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Chair Certification
  I, William Ross, Chair for the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) certify the meeting minutes for April 4, 2013 (video/teleconference) are complete and accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of said meeting.

  __________________________________
  William Ross, NACEPT Chair
  Date:  3/10/14


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28026-28028]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0608; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-017-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Textron Aviation Inc. Model 390 airplanes (type certificate
previously held by Beechcraft Corporation). This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the engine driven
pumps (EDPs) on three different airplanes. This proposed AD would
require an inspection to determine if an affected EDP is installed with
replacement as necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Textron
Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box 7706,
Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.txtavsupport.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0608; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul C. DeVore, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0608;
Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-017-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We received reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the engine driven
pumps (EDPs) on three different Textron Aviation Inc. Model 390
airplanes. In one incident, the airplane exited the runway at a high
speed, resulting in extensive damage to the airplane. One manufacturing
lot of EDPs has excessive pitting in the aluminum port caps that could
cause multiple-origin fatigue cracking of the port caps. Flammable
hydraulic fluid could leak into the engine compartment, and the leaking
could also cause loss of all normal hydraulic functions, including
normal anti-skid braking, ground spoilers, speedbrakes, and normal
landing gear extension. This condition, if not corrected, could result
in loss of normal hydraulic functions, which could lead to a high-speed
runway overrun and/or an in-flight fire.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Parker Service Bulletin 66179-29-486, dated August 4,
2016, which identifies the affected serial number EDPs. We also
reviewed Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-4161, dated
November 18, 2016, which describes procedures for determining if an
affected serial number EDP is installed and procedures for replacing
the EDP if necessary. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information specifies a compliance time of 200 hours
time-in-service (TIS) or 12 months, whichever occurs first. This
proposed AD would require a compliance of 100 hours TIS to reduce the
possibility of another incident due to a cracked EDP. We removed the 12
month calendar time from the compliance time because we

determined the unsafe condition is related to flight hours of the
airplane rather than calendar time. The requirements of this proposed
AD take precedence over the requirements of the service information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 179 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost              Parts cost          product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection to determine if         .5 work-hour x $85 per    Not applicable.....          $42.50       $7,607.50
 affected serial number EDP is      hour = $42.50.
 installed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We estimate the affected manufacturer lot of EDPs as 28 EDPs. If an
airplane has two of the affected EDPs installed, both EDPs must be
replaced. However, no more than a total of 28 EDPs will require
replacing for the U.S. fleet:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the EDP.....................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255.         $17,388         $17,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Textron Aviation Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0608; Directorate
Identifier 2017-CE-017-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 4, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate
previously held by Beechcraft Corporation) Model 390 airplanes;
serial numbers RB-4 through RB-295; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the
engine driven pumps (EDPs) on three different airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the EDP that could cause
leakage of hydraulic fluid and possibly lead to loss of normal
hydraulic functions, which could lead to a high-speed runway overrun
and/or an in-flight fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    Within 100 hours time-in service (TIS) after the effective date
of this AD, inspect the airplane to determine if any affected serial
number EDP, part number (P/N) 66179-01 (Beechcraft/Textron P/N 390-
389022-0003), is installed on the airplane following the
Accomplishment Instructions in Beechcraft

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-4161, dated November 18, 2016. Use
table 1 in Parker Service Bulletin 66179-29-486, dated August 4,
2016, to identify the affected serial numbers of EDP, P/N 66179-01
(Beechcraft/Textron P/N 390-389022-0003).
    (h) Replacement
    If any affected serial number EDP was found during the
inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD, within 100 hours
TIS after the effective date of this AD, replace any affected serial
number EDP, P/N 66179-01 (Beechcraft/Textron P/N 390-389022-0003),
with a serviceable serial number EDP, P/N 66179-01 (Beechcraft/
Textron P/N 390-389022-0003) that is either not listed in table 1 in
Parker Service Bulletin 66179-29-486, dated August 4, 2016, or has
been reworked following Parker Service Bulletin 66179-29-486, dated
August 4, 2016. Use the Accomplishment Instructions in Beechcraft
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 29-4161, dated November 18, 2016, to
do the replacement actions.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul C. DeVore,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box
7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.txtavsupport.com; Internet:
www.txtav.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 9, 2017.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12512 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 Registration Review Program Vivian Prunier Office of Pesticide Programs January 20, 2006 2 Registration Review Program ° What is Registration Review?

° How does it differ from Reregistration?

° Proposed Program ° Public Participation ° Rule making schedule 3 What is Registration Review?

° FIFRA sec. 3( g) requires periodic review of pesticide registrations ° Goal is to review each pesticide's registration every 15 years 4 Congressional Intent ". . . science and the subsequent application . . . [ are] continuing to evolve."

". . . registration review . . . . creates a continuous reregistration process . . .

[ for which] the Agency and the registrant can plan . . ." 5 FIFRA 3( g) Requirements ° Procedural regulations required ° Use existing authorities to:

  call in new data   protect data rights   cancel registrations ° No limits on the conduct of other FIFRA reviews. 6 Compare Registration Review to Reregistration REREGISTRATION ° Old pesticides ° One time review ° 20 pesticides/ year ° Process set by law REGISTRATION REVIEW ° All pesticides ° 15 year cycle ° 45 pesticides a year ° Process set by rule 7 Compare Registration Review to Reregistration ( cont.)

REREGISTRATION ° Comprehensive reviews ° Start from scratch ° Major data gaps REGISTRATION REVIEW ° Update reviews as needed ° Add to what we know ° Fewer data needs 8 Elements of the Proposed Program ° Unit of review ° Scheduling reviews ° Process for conducting the review ° Public participation ° Registration review decision 9 Unit of Review EPA proposes " registration review cases" composed of related pesticide chemicals and the products that contain them.

  Past and current practice   PPDC agrees with it 10 Scheduling Reviews EPA evaluated two options 1. Chronological 2. Risk based PPDC recommended and EPA proposed chronological   Predictable   Fair and objective   Older pesticides more likely to have unrecognized risks 11 15 Year Cycle Each year open about 45 new cases and complete about 45 cases ° Some completions will be " E Z" cases opened that year ° Other completions will be cases opened in previous years 12 Proposed Approach for Conducting the Review ° Focus on risk assessment ° Ask if risk assessment is still acceptable ° If new risk assessment is needed,

determine if new data are needed PPDC recommended this approach 13 New Decision Paradigm ° What's changed since the last registration decision?

° How significant is this change?

° Do we need new information?

° Is the regulatory position likely to change as a result of the new information? 14 Proposed Process 1. Announce schedules 3 years in advance 2. Assemble information that EPA intends to consider in its review   Current registration status   List of studies   Latest risk assessments and decision documents   Use/ usage information   Incident reports 15 Proposed Process 3. Place the information in a docket for public review and comment 4. Review the information, including comments 5. Ask, " What's Changed? And is it significant?" 16 Proposed Process 6. Decide if any new risk assessments are needed 7. Decide if any new data are needed   Issue DCI, generate & review data 8. Conduct new risk assessments, if needed 9. Decide if pesticide meets FIFRA standard for registration 17 Registration Review Flowchart Identify/ Assemble Background Information stakeholder input Review information Decision:

Are new assessments required?

NO YES Decision:

Are data currently available?

Conduct new assessments Registrant provides data;

YES NO Complete Registration Review Decision/ Document 18 Public Participation ° For all pesticides in registration review, EPA will formally request public input when we:

  open the registration review docket   issue the proposed registration review decision 19 Additional Opportunities ° EPA may also seek public input on:

  Draft risk assessments   Risk mitigation 20 Consultation ° Stakeholders include registrants, users,

public interest groups, other federal,

state, and Tribal agencies ° EPA may consult with stakeholders about upcoming or ongoing registration reviews   Before review  discuss pesticide's use   During review  discuss risk assessments and risk management options 21 Transparent Process ° A pesticide's docket stays open for the entire registration review process until completion of all actions required in the final registration review decision. 22 Transparent Process ° The docket will include   minutes of significant stakeholder meetings   other new information received during review   comments on any draft risk assessments   comments on proposed registration review decisions 23 Registration Review Decision Determine whether a pesticide meets FIFRA requirements for registration   Describes basis of FIFRA finding   Identifies any risk mitigation or other action   Identifies any additional data ( issue DCI)

  Sets deadlines for completing required actions 24 Rule making Schedule ° Proposal published July 13, 2005 ° Comments period closed October 11,

2005 ° Final Rule  summer 2006 Begin the program   fall 2006


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 13, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-16495

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    American Airlines, Inc. (American),   filed  11/7/03
for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, and the terminal
point Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Mexico.

Applicant rep:   Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Linda L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The action above was effective when taken:   November 12, 2003,  through
 November 12, 2005_.

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

  		        Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted
is subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7
of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our standard practice,
the dormancy notice period will begin on January 31, 2004, American’s
proposed startup date for services in the Dallas/Ft.
Worth-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo market.

We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of the 15-day
answer period with the consent of all parties served with the
application.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

							APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24413-24415]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC14-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-600); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy
(DOE).

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-600 (Rules of
Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection
requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as
explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Federal Register (79 FR 7651, 2/10/2014) requesting public comments.
The Commission received no comments on the FERC-600.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by May 30,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0180, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC14-6-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 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>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-600, Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint
Procedures.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0180.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-600 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: The information is used by the Commission to implement
the statutory provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C./
791a-825r; the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; the Natural
Gas Policy Act (NGPA), 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432; the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C. 2601-2645; the
Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 App. U.S.C. 1 et. seq.; the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301-1356; and the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, (Pub. L. 109-58) 119 Stat. 594.
    For the natural gas industry, section 14(a) of the NGA \1\ provides
that the Commission may permit any person to file with it a statement
in writing, under oath or otherwise, as it shall determine, as to any
or all facts and circumstances concerning a matter which may be the
subject of an investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717m; accord 15 U.S.C. 717d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For public utilities, section 307(a) of the FPA \2\ provides that
the Commission may permit any person to file with it a statement in
writing, under oath or otherwise, as it shall determine, as to any or
all facts and circumstances concerning a matter which may be the
subject of an investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 825f(a); accord 16 U.S.C. 824e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 215(d)(5) of the FPA \3\ provides that the Commission, upon
its own motion or upon complaint, may order the Electric Reliability
Organization to submit to the Commission a proposed reliability
standard or a modification to a reliability standard that addresses a
specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or modified
reliability standard appropriate to carry out this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For hydropower projects, section 19 of the FPA \4\ provides that,
as a condition of a license, jurisdiction is conferred upon the
Commission, upon complaint of any person aggrieved or upon its own
initiative, to exercise such regulation and control over services,
rates, and charges until such time as the State shall have provided a
commission or other authority for such regulation and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For qualifying facilities, section 210(h)(2)(B) of PURPA \5\
provides that any electric utility, qualifying cogenerator, or
qualifying small power producer may petition the Commission to enforce
the requirements of the Commission's PURPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 16 U.S.C. 824a-3(h)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For oil pipelines, in Part 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act,
sections 1, 6 and 15 (recodified by Pub. L. 95-473 and found as an
appendix to Title 49 U.S.C.),\6\ the Commission is authorized to
investigate the rates charged by oil pipeline companies subject to its
jurisdiction. If such rate has been filed and allowed by the Commission
to go into effect without suspension and hearing, the Commission can
investigate the effective rate on its own motion or by complaint filed
with the Commission. Section 13 of the ICA \7\ provides that any person
can file a complaint regarding anything done or omitted to be done by
an oil pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq (1988).
    \7\ Id. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 602,\8\ the Commission revised its regulations
governing complaints filed with the Commission under the above
statutes. Order No. 602 was designed to encourage and support
consensual resolution of complaints, and to organize the complaint
procedures so that all complaints are handled in a timely and fair
manner. In order to achieve this result, the Commission revised Rule
206 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206) to require
that a complaint satisfy certain informational requirements, to require
that answers be filed in a 20-day time frame, and to provide that
parties may employ various types of alternative dispute resolution
procedures to resolve their disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 64 FR 17087 (April 8, 1999)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in complaints filed by interested/affected parties
regarding jurisdictional oil, natural gas, electric and hydropower
operations, facilities, and services are used by the Commission in
establishing a basis to make an initial determination regarding the
merits of the complaint and whether or not to undertake further
investigation or provide relief. Investigations may range from whether
there is undue discrimination in rates or services to questions
regarding market power of regulated entities to environmental concerns.
In order to make an informed determination, it is important to know the
specifics underlying any oil, gas, electric, and hydropower complaint
``up-front'' in a timely manner and in sufficient detail to allow the
Commission to act swiftly. In addition, such complaint data help the
Commission and interested parties to monitor, e.g., the market for
undue discrimination or exercises of market power. The information
submitted is voluntary but submitted pursuant to prescribed filing
requirements. The Commission implements these filing requirements in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR parts 343 and
385.206.
    Type of Respondents: Interested/affected parties regarding oil,
natural gas, electric and hydropower operations, facilities, and
services.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \9\: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission defines burden 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. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                                             FERC-600, Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Annual number                     Average burden     Total annual
                       Number of respondents                         of responses    Total number of    and cost per    burden hours and     Cost per
                                                                    per respondent      responses         response     total annual cost  respondent ($)
(1)                                                                            (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)             (4)    (3) * (4) = (5)       (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62................................................................               1                 62        \10\ 160         \12\ 9,920         $11,280
                                                                                \11\ $11,280      \13\ $699,360
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 estimate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As indicated in the 60-day notice, we re-evaluated the time
and effort involved in preparing and filing a complaint, in light of
the current complexities of the industries regulated by FERC. As a
result, we think an estimate of 160 hours per complaint is a more
realistic average of the burden per filing. The reporting
requirements have not been revised.
    \11\ $70.50/hour is the average hourly cost of a FERC employee
(salary plus benefits) for Fiscal Year 2014. We assume that the
respondents to this collection are similarly situated in terms of
salary plus benefits.
    Average cost per response = Average burden hours per response
[160 hours] * $70.50 per hour.
    \12\ Total annual burden hours = Total number of responses [62]
* Average burden hours per response [160].
    \13\ Total annual cost = Total annual burden hours [9,920] *
hourly cost [$70.50].

    Dated: April 23, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09802 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P