[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22678-22680]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10460]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CWA-05-2016-0014; FRL-9977-83-OARM]

Notice of Order Denying Petition To Set Aside Consent Agreement
and Proposed Final Order

AGENCY: Office of Administrative Law Judges, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of order denying petition to set aside consent agreement
and proposed final order.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 309(g)(4)(C) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA or Act), notice is hereby given that an Order Denying Petition to
Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order has been issued in
the matter styled as In the Matter of BP Products North America Inc.,
Docket No. CWA-05-2016-0014. This document serves to notify the public
of the denial of the Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and
Proposed Final Order filed in the matter and explain the reasons for
such denial.

ADDRESSES: To access and review documents filed in the matter that is
the subject of this document, please visit https://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/alj/alj_web_docket.nsf/Dockets/CWA-05-2016-0014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Almase, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Administrative Law Judges (1900R), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(main) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (direct); fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority

    Section 309(g)(1)(A) of the CWA empowers EPA to assess an
administrative civil penalty whenever on the basis of any information
available EPA finds that a person has violated certain sections of the
Act or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such section
in a permit issued under section 402 or 404 of the Act (33 U.S.C.
1319(g)(1)(A)). However, before issuing an order assessing an
administrative civil penalty under section 309(g), EPA is required by
the CWA and the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the
Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/
Termination or Suspension of Permits (Rules of Practice) to provide
public notice of and reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed
issuance of such order (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4); 40 CFR 22.45(b)(1)).
    Any person who comments on the proposed assessment of a penalty is
then entitled to receive notice of any hearing held under section
309(g) of the CWA and at such hearing is entitled to a reasonable
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence (33 U.S.C.
1319(g)(4)(B); 40 CFR 22.45(c)(1)). If no hearing is held before
issuance of an order assessing a penalty under section 309(g) of the
CWA, such as where the administrative penalty action in question is
settled pursuant to a consent agreement and final order, any person who
commented on the proposed assessment may petition to set aside the
order on the basis that material evidence was not considered and to
hold a hearing on the penalty (33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C); 40 CFR
22.45(c)(4)(ii)).
    The CWA requires that if the evidence presented by the petitioner
in support of the petition is material and was not considered in the
issuance of the order, the Administrator shall immediately set aside
such order and provide a hearing in accordance with section 309(g)(33
U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(C)). Conversely, if the Administrator denies a
hearing, the Administrator shall provide to the petitioner, and publish
in the Federal Register, notice of and reasons for such denial. Id.
    Pursuant to section 309(g) of the CWA, the authority to decide
petitions by commenters to set aside final orders entered without a
hearing and provide copies and/or notice of the decision has been
delegated to Regional Administrators in administrative penalty actions
brought by regional offices of EPA. Administrator's Delegation of
Authority 2-52A (accessible at: http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicy/ads/dm/2-52A.pdf). The Rules of Practice require that where a commenter
petitions to set aside a consent agreement and final order in an
administrative penalty action brought by a regional office of EPA, the
Regional Administrator shall assign a Petition Officer to consider and
rule on the petition (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(iii)). Upon review of the
petition and any response filed by the complainant, the Petition
Officer shall then make written findings as to (A) the extent to which
the petition states an issue relevant and material to the issuance of
the consent agreement and proposed final order; (B) whether the
complainant adequately considered and responded to the petition; and
(C) whether resolution of the proceeding by the parties is appropriate
without a hearing (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(v)).
    If the Petition Officer finds that a hearing is appropriate, the
Presiding Officer shall order that the consent agreement and proposed
final order be set aside and establish a schedule for a hearing (40 CFR
22.45(c)(4)(vi)). Conversely, if the Petition Officer finds that
resolution of the proceeding without a hearing is appropriate, the
Petition Officer shall issue an order denying the petition and stating
reasons for the denial (40 CFR 22.45(c)(4)(vii)). The Petition Officer
shall then file the order with the Regional Hearing Clerk, serve copies
of the on the parties and the commenter, and provide public notice of
the order. Id.

II. Procedural Background

    In May of 2016, the Director of the Water Division of EPA's Region
5 (Complainant) and BP Products North America Inc. (Respondent)
executed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in the matter
styled as In the Matter of BP Products North America Inc., Docket No.
CWA-05-2016-0014.\1\ The CAFO sought to simultaneously commence and
conclude an administrative penalty action under section 309(g) of the
CWA against Respondent for alleged violations found by EPA during an
inspection of Respondent's petroleum refinery located at 2815
Indianapolis Boulevard in Whiting, Indiana (Facility), conducted from
May 5 through May 9, 2014. Under the terms of the CAFO, Respondent
admitted the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the CAFO but
neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations and alleged
violations. Nevertheless, Respondent waived its right to a hearing or
to otherwise contest the CAFO, and agreed to pay a civil penalty in the
amount of $74,212. On May 31, 2016, Complainant and Respondent also
entered into an Administrative Consent Order that incorporated a
Compliance Plan setting forth the measures Respondent had already
taken, as well as those it agreed it would take in the future, in
response to the alleged violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While titled jointly, the Final Order is actually a separate
document, drafted to be signed solely by Region 5's Acting Regional
Administrator. It is the execution of the Final Order and its
subsequent filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk at Region 5 that
will effectuate the parties' Consent Agreement and conclude the
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On or about June 1, 2016, EPA provided public notice of its intent
to file the proposed CAFO and accept public comments thereon. Carlotta
Blake-King, Carolyn A. Marsh, Debra Michaud, and Patricia Walter
(Petitioners) timely filed comments on the proposed CAFO (Comments).
Complainant subsequently prepared a Response to Comments Regarding
Proposed CAFO (Response to Comments), which indicated that EPA would
not be altering the proposed CAFO. The Response to Comments was mailed
to Petitioners, together with a copy of the proposed CAFO, on or about
January 13, 2017, and each Petitioner received the materials by January
30, 2017. On or about February 24, 2017, Petitioners timely filed a
joint petition seeking to set aside the proposed CAFO

and have a public hearing held thereon (Petition).
    A Request to Assign Petition Officer (Request) was issued by Region
5's Acting Regional Administrator on May 17, 2017, and served on
Petitioners on May 30, 2017. In the Request, the Acting Regional
Administrator stated that after considering the issues raised in the
Petition, Complainant had decided not to withdraw the CAFO.
Accordingly, the Acting Regional Administrator requested assignment of
an Administrative Law Judge to consider and rule on the Petition
pursuant to Sec.  22.45(c)(4)(iii) of the Rules of Practice, 40 CFR
22.45(c)(4)(iii). By Order dated June 16, 2017, the undersigned was
designated to preside over this matter, and Complainant was directed to
file a response to the Petition. Complainant filed its Response to
Petition to Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order
(Response to Petition) on July 13, 2017.

III. Denial of Petitioners' Petition

    On May 8, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Petition to
Set Aside Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order (Order). Therein,
the undersigned denied the Petition without the need for a hearing on
the basis that Petitioners had failed to present any relevant and
material evidence that had not been adequately considered and responded
to by Complainant.
    Specifically, Petitioners raised four issues.\2\ First, Petitioners
argued that the alleged violations warranted a higher civil penalty
than that assessed in the proposed CAFO and that the occurrence of the
alleged violations in a region designated as an Area of Concern
warranted an additional penalty of five million dollars. The
undersigned determined that while Complainant did not provide a
detailed explanation of how the civil penalty assessed in the proposed
CAFO had been calculated, it had considered and responded to
Petitioners' arguments in its Response to Comments and Response to
Petition. The undersigned further found that Petitioners had produced
no evidence to support their position or rebut Complainant's position
that it had properly implemented the applicable policy governing its
calculation and negotiation of the penalty assessed in the proposed
CAFO. The undersigned concluded that Petitioners had not met the burden
of demonstrating that the matters they raised with respect to the
assessment of a higher penalty constituted material and relevant
evidence that Complainant failed to consider in agreeing to the
proposed CAFO. Thus, Petitioners' claim in this regard was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Petitioners described the arguments set forth in the
Petition as additions to the Comments they had previously submitted
to EPA in response to the public notice of EPA's intent to file the
proposed CAFO. Accordingly, the undersigned considered the arguments
raised by Petitioners in both the Petition and the Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Petitioners urged that a Supplemental Environmental Project
(SEP) be incorporated into the proposed CAFO and that local residents
be included in the distribution of funds for SEP projects. The
undersigned found that as Complainant had stated in its Response to
Comments and Response to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority to
demand a SEP or control the distribution of civil penalty funds. The
undersigned concluded that given this lack of authority, the issues
raised by Petitioners with regard to a SEP were immaterial to the
issuance of the proposed CAFO. Thus, this claim was denied.
    Third, Petitioners urged that an independent advisory committee and
environmental monitoring program for Respondent's wastewater treatment
plant be created. Petitioners then questioned Respondent's community
outreach activities, which Complainant had referenced in its Response
to Comments. The undersigned found that as argued by Complainant in its
Response to Petition, EPA lacks the legal authority under section
309(g) of the CWA to establish advisory committees or environmental
monitoring programs or compel Respondent to engage in outreach
activities. The undersigned concluded that given the absence of any
material and relevant issue not considered by Complainant with respect
to the course of action requested by Petitioners, their claim in this
regard was also denied.
    Finally, Petitioners referred in their Comments and Petition to
Respondent having a history of violations. While a violator's history
of prior violations is a statutory penalty factor to be considered
under section 309(g)(3) of the CWA, the undersigned found that
Petitioners had presented no specific claims of violations that were
related to those set forth in the proposed CAFO, and presented no
argument supporting the notion that any prior, unspecified infraction,
had it been considered, should have led to a penalty different than
that agreed upon by the parties. The undersigned also noted that
Complainant had addressed claims concerning Respondent's history of
violations in its Response to Comments, which suggested that to the
extent any prior violations would be relevant to the proposed CAFO,
Complainant had adequately considered them. Accordingly, any claim in
this regard was denied.
    Having found that Petitioners failed to present any relevant and
material evidence that had not been adequately considered and responded
to by Complainant in agreeing to the proposed CAFO, the undersigned
then addressed Petitioners' requests for a public hearing in their
Comments and Petition. Noting that Petitioners appeared to seek a
public forum, at least in part, for the parties to explain the meaning
of the proposed CAFO to the public, the undersigned observed that
section 309(g) of the CWA and the Rules of Practice provide, not for a
meeting of that nature, but rather a hearing at which evidence is
presented for the purpose of determining whether Complainant met its
burden of proving that Respondent committed the violations as alleged
and that the proposed penalty is appropriate based on applicable law
and policy. The undersigned noted that Petitioners did not specifically
identify any testimonial or documentary evidence that they would
present at any such hearing. The undersigned further noted that
Petitioners did not offer in either their Comments or the Petition any
relevant and material evidence or arguments that had not already been
adequately addressed by Complainant. For these reasons, the undersigned
found that resolution of the proceeding by the parties would be
appropriate without a hearing.
    The undersigned thus issued the Order Denying Petition to Set Aside
Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order.

    Dated: May 8, 2018.
Susan L. Biro,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[FR Doc. 2018-10460 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8519-8520]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03007]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71502; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

February 6, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 January 29, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its Fee Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish a $0.30 transaction fee for
executions in standard option contracts and $0.03 transaction fee for
Mini Option contracts for non-member broker-dealers on the Exchange.
    The current transaction fees for non-member broker dealers on the
Exchange are $0.45 per contract for standard options or $0.045 for Mini
Options.\3\ The Exchange proposes lowering the non-member broker-dealer
transaction fees to bring the fee rates in line with several competing
exchanges.\4\ The proposed transaction fees are designed both to
enhance the Exchange's competitiveness with other option exchanges and
to strengthen its market quality. The Exchange believes that the new
transaction fees will increase both intermarket and intramarket
competition by incenting broker-dealers on other exchanges to direct
additional orders to the Exchange to allow the Exchange to compete more
effectively with other options exchanges for such transactions. To the
extent that this purpose is achieved, the Exchange believes that other
market participants on the Exchange will benefit from the additional
liquidity and trading opportunities available from such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section 1(a)(ii)--Other
Market Participant Transaction Fees.
    \4\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, p. 4 (Tiered rates
starting at $0.32 per contract for electronic broker-dealers); ISE
Schedule of Fees, p. 6 ($0.30 per contract for broker-dealers in
Non-Select Symbols).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the new transaction fees
beginning February 1, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair, equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory. The

proposal is reasonable because it results in a decrease in non-member
broker dealer transactions fees for all non-member broker dealers on
the Exchange in order to enable the Exchange to improve its overall
competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market
participants. The proposed fees are fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because they will apply equally to all non-
member broker-dealers. All non-member broker-dealers will be subject to
the same transaction fee, and access to the Exchange is offered on
terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
    The decrease in transaction fees for non-member broker-dealers
should incent broker-dealers on other exchanges to direct additional
orders to the Exchange to allow the Exchange to compete more
effectively with other options exchanges for such transactions. To the
extent that this purpose is achieved, the Exchange believes that other
market participants on the Exchange will benefit from the additional
liquidity and trading opportunities available from such orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposal increases both intermarket and intramarket competition by
incenting broker-dealers on other exchanges to direct additional orders
to the Exchange to allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with
other options exchanges for such transactions. To the extent that this
purpose is achieved, the Exchange believes that other market
participants on the Exchange will benefit from the additional liquidity
and trading opportunities available from such orders. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that
the proposal reflects this competitive environment because it reduces
the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages non-member broker-
dealers to provide liquidity and to attract order flow to the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-MIAX-2014-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-06 and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03007 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 2, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19471

________________________________________________________________________

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   Continental Micronesia, Inc.  filed  10/21/04 for:

XX Exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the following
services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Guam and Hiroshima, Japan.

.

Applicant rep:  R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:
Gerald Caolo<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O SI T I O N

XX  Granted  (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action granting the exempton was effective when taken:
December 2, 2004 through December 2, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted here is consistent with the 1998 Memorandum
of Understanding between the United States and Japan.

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)

________________________________________________________________________
______________

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 authority 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 order is available on the World Wide Web
at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier 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, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
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
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI 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.

05/2004

 PAGE   3

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18968-18969]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP02-25-001]

Copiah Storage, LLC; Notice of Application

April 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 29, 2007, as supplemented on April 5,
2007, Copiah Storage, LLC (Copiah), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston,
Texas 77056-5310, filed an application in Docket No. CP02-25-001,
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's
regulations, an amendment to the certificate of public convenience and
necessity issued to Copiah on June 13, 2002 in Docket No. CP02-25-000.
Copiah requests authorization to develop two new salt dome storage
caverns totaling approximately 15.5 Bcf working gas capacity; construct
a new 32,000 hp compressor station; construct freshwater supply wells
and brine water disposal wells; construct approximately 15 miles of 24-
inch diameter header which will connect the Copiah facilities to Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP's pipeline system and to the proposed
Southeast Supply Header pipeline; implement the proposed tariff; and
continue the previous certificate authorization to charge market-based
rates for storage and hub services. The expanded facilities will create
a maximum total new storage capacity of 15.5 Bcf with a maximum
additional daily withdrawal rate of 1.3 MMcf/d; all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. Copiah requested that the Commission issue an
order granting an amendment to its certificate of public convenience
and necessity by December 31, 2008 with authorization to construct
through 2014.
    These filings are available for review at the Commission's
Washington, DC offices or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov/ using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Toll-free: 1-
866-208-3676; or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Ashley Leder, Director, Certificates and Reporting, Copiah Storage,
LLC, 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77251 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this Project. First, any person wishing to

obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceeding for this
project should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10) by the comment date, below. A person obtaining
party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the
Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents
filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14
copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the
applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to
the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments
considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two
copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project and/
or associated pipeline. The Commission will consider these comments in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a
comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments
in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 285.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: April 30, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7145 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64189-64191]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0711]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Raccoon Creek, Bridgeport, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the U.S. Route 130 lift Bridge over Raccoon Creek at mile
marker 1.8 in Bridgeport, NJ. Bridge tender logs from 2007-2013
indicates that the majority of the marine traffic transits Raccoon
Creek during the summer months. To better align the operating schedule
to meet the needs of both land and marine traffic, the proposed change
would reduce the number of months the bridge is required to open on
signal during the early spring and fall of each year.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0711 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mrs. Jessica Shea, Fifth Coast Guard District
Bridge Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2013-0711), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0711 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0711 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

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

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The current operating schedule for the bridge is set out in 33 CFR
117.741(a), effective May 20, 2003. The current regulation states: (a)
The draw of the Route 130 highway bridge, mile 1.8, at Bridgeport,
shall open on signal:
    (1) March 1 through November 30, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
    (2) At all other times, if at least four hours notice is given.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The bridge owner, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT),
requested a change in the operation regulation for the U.S. Route 130
highway bridge, at mile 1.8, across Raccoon Creek in Bridgeport, NJ.
NJDOT provided the Coast Guard with the bridge tender logs dating back
to 2007 to illustrate the marine traffic patterns on Raccoon Creek.
Based on the information provided by the bridge tenders, there have
been very few requests requiring openings between March 1 and November
30 during the 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. time period.
    The vertical clearance of the vertical-lift bridge is 5 feet above
mean high water in the closed position and 64 above mean high water in
the open position. In order to align the operating schedule with the
observed marine traffic since 2007, this proposed rule would change the
open on demand requirement for March 1 through April 30 and November 1
through November 30 to require a 4 hour advance notice.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The majority of vessels that use this waterway are recreational
boats that travel during the summer and fall months of May through
October. The current operating schedule requires openings on signal
from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. between the months of March and November. If
vessels require an opening during any time of the year outside the
summer and fall season or between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., the
bridge will open with a 4 hour advanced notice. The impact to vessels
of the proposed change to the regulation is that vessels which require
openings during March, April, or November will need to provide 4 hours
advanced notice. Based on the average logged openings between 2007-2013
during the months of March, April, and November, the bridge tender logs
indicate that fewer than 5 vessels annually will be required to provide
4 hours notice under the proposed change.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. The impact to vessels of this
regulation is that vessels which require openings during March, April,
or November will need to provide 4 hours advanced notice. Based on the
average logged openings during 2007-2013 during the months of March,
April, and November, the bridge tender logs indicate that fewer than 30
vessels annually require openings in those months. This proposed
regulatory change should not have an adverse effect on their transit
because the bridge is able to open if the mariner provides at least 4
hours of advance notice.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. This proposed rule amends the months of the year
when the draw must open on signal when it is documented that vessel
traffic is low. Additionally, vessels may still request an opening with
4 hours advanced notice during the months of March, April, and
November.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
This proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.741 paragraph(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.741  Raccoon Creek

    (a) The draw of the Route 130 highway bridge, mile 1.8, at
Bridgeport, shall open on signal:
    (1) May 1 through October 31 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
    (2) At all other times, if at least four hours notice is given.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 19, 2013.
Steven H. Ratti,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2013-25288 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19412-19413]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2004-17989]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated January 29, 2014, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) has petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a renewal of its waiver
of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained in 49 CFR part 218, Subpart B, Blue Signal
Protection of Workers. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2004-17989.
    CP seeks renewal of its relief from 49 CFR Section 218.22(c)(5),
Utility employee. This section lists the functions allowed to be
performed by a utility employee without establishing blue signal
protection. Although the employee under this section is allowed to
remove or replace an end-of-train (EOT) telemetry device, FRA has
maintained that removing or replacing a battery in an EOT, while the
device is in place on the rear of the train, requires Blue Signal
Protection because this task is a service and repair to the device. The
present relief allows operating craft utility employees to change out
EOT batteries as long as the changeout does not require the use of a
tool. CP states that in the 8 years since the original waiver was
granted, it has not recorded any accidents or incidents related to this
waiver and hereby submits its petition for continued relief.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be

submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 23, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-07786 Filed 4-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39934-39935]
[DOCID:fr13jy10-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9174-8]

Oil and Natural Gas Sector--Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: EPA will be conducting public meetings to provide an
opportunity for public involvement during EPA's review of air
regulations affecting the oil and natural gas industry. The review in
progress covers oil and natural gas exploration and production, as well
as natural gas processing, transmission, storage, and distribution. The
primary purpose of these meetings is to establish a dialog among
government, the affected industry, and other interested members of the
public early in the rule development process, as well as to receive
information that may be useful to EPA in its review. At these meetings,
EPA will explain the regulatory process, provide a brief overview of
its regulatory review, solicit information that may be useful to EPA in
the review of these rules, and provide an opportunity for participants
to ask questions and submit comments. These meetings will be open to
the public.

DATES: Meetings: There will be daytime and evening meetings to provide
greater public access. The first pair of meetings will be held on
August 2, 2010, from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., in the
Council Chamber of the Arlington Municipal Building, Arlington, Texas.
The second pair of meetings will be held on August 3, 2010, from 12
p.m. to 4 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., in the ballroom of the Holiday
Inn Denver East-Stapleton, Denver, Colorado. Meetings may end earlier
than the scheduled times based on participation.
    Participation: Although not required for attendance, we ask that
anyone who plans to attend one or more of the meetings provide name,
affiliation, and sessions attending to the meeting information contact
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least

10 days prior to the meeting. However, anyone who wishes to present
comments at any of the meetings must notify the meeting information
contact at least 10 days prior to the meeting to facilitate EPA in
developing the agenda. We request that an electronic or hard copy of
any prepared comments be provided to EPA at the time of the meeting.
    Special Accommodations: To request accommodation of a disability,
please contact the meeting information contact listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting,
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The August 2, 2010, meetings will be held at the Arlington
Municipal Building, 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, Texas 76010. The
August 3, 2010, meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Denver East-
Stapleton, 3333 Quebec St., Denver, Colorado 80207.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the EPA Oil and
Natural Gas Sector Program, contact: Mr. Bruce Moore, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5460; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For meeting information, contact: Mr. Nick
Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 109
T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    EPA is in the process of reviewing air regulations affecting the
oil and natural gas industry. This review may potentially affect any
segment of the oil and natural gas industry, which includes, but is not
limited to: Offshore drilling; onshore drilling; oil and natural gas
production; natural gas processing; natural gas transmission; and
natural gas distribution. You may be affected in some way by regulatory
action following this review if you own, operate, work, or live near
oil and natural gas operations in the segments listed above.
    Docket. EPA has established a docket for the above mentioned review
process under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background

    Under sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA has a mandatory duty to take actions relative to the
review/revision of new source performance standards (NSPS) and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) within 8 years
of the issuance of the standards. On January 14, 2009, WildEarth
Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance brought suit against EPA in
the District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that EPA
failed to meet its obligations under sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6),
and 112(f)(2) of the CAA with respect to the Oil and Natural Gas
Production source category. On February 4, 2010, the Court entered a
consent decree that resolves the claims in this lawsuit. The consent
decree requires, among other things, that EPA sign by January 31, 2011,
proposed standards and/or determinations not to issue standards
pursuant to sections 111(b)(1)(B), 112(d)(6), and 112(f)(2) of the CAA,
and that EPA finalize its proposals by November 30, 2011. The consent
decree authorizes EPA to sign by January 31, 2011, a final
determination not to review the NSPS pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B)
of the CAA without issuing a proposal for such determination.
    EPA is in the process of taking actions under CAA sections 111 and
112 relative to the review/revision of the following NSPS and NESHAP:
The NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC from Onshore Natural Gas Processing
Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK); the NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas
Processing: SO2 Emissions (40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL); the
NESHAP From Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HH); and the NESHAP From Natural Gas Transmission and Storage
Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH). As part of this process, EPA
is holding public meetings in the Dallas, Texas, and Denver, Colorado,
areas, both of which are in regions significantly affected by oil and
natural gas production operations. The purpose of these meetings is to
establish a dialog among government, the affected industry, and other
interested members of the public, as well as to receive information
that may be useful to EPA in its review of the NSPS and NESHAP
identified above. Such information could include information regarding
the nature of local oil and gas production operations, air emissions
from oil and gas production operations, control technologies and/or
practices that may minimize or otherwise address air emissions, and
information on the public health, welfare, and other environmental
impacts of air emissions from oil and gas production operations. At
these meetings, EPA plans to provide a brief overview of the Agency's
review process for the NSPS and NESHAP identified above, including
background information on these regulations. There will also be
opportunities for questions and answers. In addition, any interested
party from industry or the general public may present oral or written
information to EPA at these meetings.

    Dated: July 7, 2010.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-17042 Filed 7-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27944-27945]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR15-26-000]

Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Staff Protest To
Petition for Rate Approval

    1. Commission staff hereby protests pursuant to the section
284.123(g)(4)(i) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ the Petition for
Rate Approval pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) filed by Enterprise
Texas Pipeline LLC (Enterprise) on March 13, 2015, in the above
referenced docket. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement approved
by the Commission in Docket Nos. PR10-14-000 and PR10-14-001,\2\
Enterprise filed a new petition for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR
284.123(b)(2) proposing a new rate applicable to its Natural Gas Policy
Act (NGPA) section 311 service. Enterprise elected to use the
Commission's new optional notice procedures set forth in section
284.123(g). Enterprise proposes to increase its firm and interruptible
transportation services for Rate Zone 1--Legacy Assets and Rate Zone
2--Sherman Extension. Enterprise also proposes to revise its Statement
of Operating Conditions (SOC) applicable to its transportation services
performed pursuant to NGPA section 311, which it states is updated
solely to reflect the new proposed rates. Enterprise states it has not
proposed any changes to the operating terms and conditions of its SOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 284.123(g)(4)(i) (2014).
    \2\ Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC, Delegated Letter Order,
December 16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Commission staff notes that Enterprise has not adequately
supported its filing and shown that the proposed rates are fair and
equitable. For instance, Enterprise has not provided sufficient support
for the discount adjustment used in calculating the billing
determinants. In addition, Enterprise has not provided adequate
explanation and support for its proposed cost of service, rate base,
cost of capital, and cost allocation, among other issues.
    3. Commission staff's specific concerns include, in particular,
Enterprise's development of its discount adjustment in designing rates.
For example, in Zone 2 the proposed rates are significantly higher than
the rates Enterprise proposed in its prior rate case, Docket No. PR10-
14-000, even though the cost of service for Zone 2 is 20 percent lower
and the throughput is 55 percent higher using the same rate design
methodology and imputed billing determinants from its prior case.
Similarly, using the same methodology to design rates for Zone 1,
Enterprise proposes a rate of $0.7636 per Dth, yet the unit cost prior
to any discount adjustment is $0.2006 per Dth.
    4. Commission staff has concerns that Enterprise has not classified
any costs as variable costs when calculating its rates. Enterprise
calculated straight-fixed variable rates for Zone 2 but did not
classify any costs as variable cost rates. However, since Enterprise
included $91.6 million in Account No. 368, Compressor Station
Equipment, it follows that there should be variable costs associated
with operating and maintaining compressors. Moreover, Account No. 855,
Other Fuel and Power for Compressor Stations, typically

contains only variable costs. Similarly, for Zone 1, Enterprise did not
classify any costs as variable costs, even though Enterprise booked
over $509 million to Compressor Station Equipment.
    5. Commission staff has concerns regarding the allocation of
Administrative and General (A&G) Expenses between Enterprise's two
delivery zones. Exhibit H-1 shows that Enterprise allocated only 7.5
percent of A&G Expenses to Zone 2 which seems low considering that over
15 percent of Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses, 15 percent of
gross plant and over 14 percent of revenues were derived from Zone 2.
    6. Enterprise proposes to include both gathering and storage plant
in rate base. This is inconsistent with prior cases, where Enterprise
has sometimes included gathering in rate base (see Docket No. PR07-12-
000) and also excluded it from rate base (see Docket No. PR10-14-000).
Enterprise has provided little to support its proposed treatment of
gathering plant. In addition, Commission staff notes that Enterprise
has market-based rate authority to provide storage services. Enterprise
has not provided sufficient support to include storage plant in rate
base for the first time. Further, Enterprise has not included any
storage related O&M expenses to operate the plant.
    7. Finally, Enterprise has requested a weighted average cost of
capital of 10.41 percent without adequate support for either the
proposed capital structure or the individual capital cost components.

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11736 Filed 5-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 14028-14030]
[DOCID:fr15mr11-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0122]

Center for Devices and Radiological Health 510(k) Implementation:
Online Repository of Medical Device Labeling, Including Photographs;
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled ``510(k) Implementation: Discussion of an Online
Repository of Medical Device Labeling and of Making Device Photographs
Available in a Public Database Without Disclosing Proprietary
Information.'' The purpose of the meeting is to obtain public comment
on the following topics: FDA's plans to establish an online public
repository of medical device labeling and strategies for displaying
device photographs in a public database without disclosing proprietary
information.

DATES:  Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on April 7,
2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 1503, Silver Spring, MD
20903.
    Contact Person: Joyce Siwarski, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 5402, Silver Spring, MD 20903,

301-796-5422, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: Online
registration is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm243829.htm. Required registration
information includes name, title, firm name, address, e-mail,
telephone, and fax number, if available. Space is limited, so online
registration will close at 5 p.m. on March 31, 2011. You will be
notified if you are on a waiting list. If registration is not filled,
onsite registration may become available.
    If you wish to make an oral presentation during any of the open
comment sessions at the meeting, you must indicate this at the time of
registration. FDA has included general topics for comment in this
document. You should also indicate which topic you wish to address in
your presentation. In order to keep each open session focused on the
topic at hand, each oral presentation should address only one topic.
FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to speak. Individuals and
organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or
coordinate their presentations and to request time for a joint
presentation. FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each
presenter and the approximate time that each oral presentation is to
begin.
    Registration is free and will be on a first-come-first-served
basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based
on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they
have been accepted. Onsite registration the day of the public meeting
will be provided on a space-available basis beginning at 7:30 a.m. Non-
U.S. citizens are subject to additional security screening, and they
should register as soon as possible.
    Requests to make oral presentations, as well as presentation
materials, must be sent to the contact person by March 21, 2011. If you
need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan
Monahan,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than March
31, 2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is exploring
the development of a searchable medical device labeling repository that
would be accessible by the public and provide useful product
information to patients and health care practitioners. This might be
similar to the labeling repository specific to drugs that is already
available through DailyMed on the National Library of Medicine's Web
site (http://www.dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/about.cfm). The
repository could eventually cover all classes of devices and could
facilitate patient access to information on what types of devices are
available for their medical condition and how the devices could be
used. It could also assist health care professionals to access labeling
that may not always accompany a medical device.
    FDA anticipates benefits for device manufacturers, including
improved information about potential predicate devices. The labeling
available in the repository might cover specific highlighted areas,
such as indications for use, operational instructions, warning and
precautions, and basic maintenance and cleaning. There might also be a
photo of the device and any acceptable accessories. We anticipate that
the repository would not include service and technical manuals or
supply any proprietary information.
    CDRH is holding a public meeting to discuss any comments, concerns,
or questions the public may have about putting all device labeling onto
one Web site and to solicit input from the public on what they would
want and need in labeling and how they would want to access it. CDRH is
also interested in learning more about how patients, consumers, and
caregivers acquire and use medical device labeling and is seeking input
about the circumstances under which patients, consumers, and caregivers
receive or should receive risk-benefit information and instructions for
use for prescription and over-the-counter devices. In addition, CDRH
seeks input on which types of medical devices need patient labeling and
what elements that labeling should include. CDRH is also interested in
learning what resources, such as guidance or training, the public would
like it to provide in order to improve the quality of professional and
patient labeling.
    The second topic to be discussed during this meeting is that of
public access to photographs of cleared medical devices. The CDRH
Preliminary Internal Evaluations 510(k) Working Group Report of August
2010 recommended that nonproprietary photos be made available in a
public database. In considering how to address this recommendation,
CDRH recognizes the sensitivity and potential confidentiality issues
with photos that would be made publicly available. Accordingly, CDRH is
interested in seeking feedback regarding the implementation of this
recommendation, including what guidance is needed to better ensure that
this recommendation may be implemented consistently and in a manner
that is useful to the public without adverse impact on industry.

II. Comments

    FDA is holding this public meeting to obtain information on a
number of issues regarding FDA's plans to establish an online public
repository of medical device labeling and strategies for displaying
device photographs available in a public database without disclosing
proprietary information. FDA believes development of a searchable
online labeling repository holds many potential benefits for industry,
consumers, and health care providers. However, FDA is aware of the
concerns some members of industry have expressed about the costs of
submitting labeling to FDA. FDA is particularly interested in comments
on the costs and benefits of establishing an online labeling repository
and is soliciting comments on the following issues:
    1. FDA has statutory authority to require the annual submission of
updated device labeling as part of the annual registration and listing
process under section 510(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(j)). FDA could rely on this authority to develop a
device labeling repository. An alternative approach would be to link to
labeling contained on manufacturers' Web sites; however, information
about devices no longer being marketed may not be maintained on those
sites. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative
approaches? Do other alternatives exist to developing a searchable
online device labeling repository?
    2. ``Labeling'' is a broad term that can cover practitioner
labeling, patient labeling, instructional manuals, and other materials.
What types of labeling should be included in an online repository?
    3. There is currently no regulation mandating the content and
format of labeling for most devices. How can FDA define the type of
labeling that must be included in the repository to ensure consistency
across products and to ensure the most important information is
included in the repository?
    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons
may submit either electronic or written comments up to 4 weeks before
and after the public workshop (March 10, 2011, through May 10, 2011)
regarding

this document. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed
comments. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. In addition, when responding
to specific discussion topics as outlined in this document, please
identify the topic you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

III. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office
of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: March 9, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-5950 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62878-62879]
[DOCID:fr22oc08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No.FAA-2008-0809; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-13]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Morehead, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Morehead, KY.
Airspace is needed to support new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) that have been developed for Morehead-Rowan County Airport. As
a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP and for Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Morehead-Rowan County Airport. The
operating status of the airport will change from Visual flight Rules
(VFR) to include IFR operations concurrent with the publication of the
SIAP. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of
Morehead-Rowan County Airport, Morehead, KY.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 15, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before December 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2008-0809; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-13, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body
of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. Unless a written adverse
or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse
or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and comments may be submitted and reviewed at
http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov, or
the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
index.html. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be
submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES above or through the website. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this
rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's idea and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating
the effectiveness of this action and determining whether additional
rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those wishing the
FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to
this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0809;
Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-13.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.

History

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Morehead, KY. This action
provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Morehead-Rowan
County Airport. Designations for Class E

airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface
of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007,
and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will
be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Morehead, KY, to provide
controlled airspace required to support the Area Navigation (RNAV)
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) that have been developed for Morehead-Rowan County Airport.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this direct final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace at Morehead, KY.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E Morehead, KY [New]

Morehead-Rowan County Airport, KY
    (Lat. 38[deg]12'54'' N., long. 83[deg]35'15'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 6.5-mile radius of the Morehead-Rowan County
Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 8, 2008.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-25073 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13603-13604]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5542]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9644-2; CERCLA-04-2012-3763]

Anniston PCB Superfund Site; Anniston, Calhoun County, AL;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Correction to Federal Register Posting.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register published on February 27, 2012, 77 FR
11533 (FRL-9637-7), EPA posted a Notice of Amended Settlement
concerning the Anniston PCB Superfund Site located in Anniston. The
settlement is not an amendment, but a new settlement at this Site. The
comment period will remain the same and end on March 28, 2012.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
March 28, 2012. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V.
Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Anniston PCB by one of the
following methods:
     www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: February 27, 2012.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-5542 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P