[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23403-23404]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4525-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Utah; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Utah (FEMA-4525-DR), dated April 4, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Utah is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs
Assistance for those areas determined to have been adversely affected
by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of April 4, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of Utah
(already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to the Crisis
Counseling Program and emergency protective measures [Category B]
not authorized under other Federal statutes, including direct
Federal assistance).

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

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09190 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31155-31156]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0369]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Regulations Under the
Federal Import Milk Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0212.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Regulations Under the Federal Import Milk Act (FIMA)--21 CFR Part 1210

OMB Control Number 0910-0212--Extension

    Under FIMA (21 U.S.C. 141-149), milk or cream may be imported into
the United States only by the holder of a valid import milk permit (21
U.S.C. 141). Before such permit is issued: (1) All cows from which
import milk or cream is produced must be physically examined and found
healthy; (2) if the milk or cream is imported raw, all such cows must
pass a tuberculin test; (3) the

dairy farm and each plant in which the milk or cream is processed or
handled must be inspected and found to meet certain sanitary
requirements; (4) bacterial counts of the milk at the time of
importation must not exceed specified limits; and (5) the temperature
of the milk or cream at time of importation must not exceed 50 [deg]F
(21 U.S.C. 142).
    Our regulations in part 1210 (21 CFR part 1210), implement the
provisions of FIMA. Sections 1210.11 and 1210.14 require reports on the
sanitary conditions of, respectively, dairy farms and plants producing
milk and/or cream to be shipped to the United States. Section 1210.12
requires reports on the physical examination of herds, while Sec.
1210.13 requires the reporting of tuberculin testing of the herds. In
addition, the regulations in part 1210 require that dairy farmers and
plants maintain pasteurization records (Sec.  1210.15) and that each
container of milk or cream imported into the United States bear a tag
with the product type, permit number, and shipper's name and address
(Sec.  1210.22). Section 1210.20 requires that an application for a
permit to ship or transport milk or cream into the United States be
made by the actual shipper. Section 1210.23 allows permits to be
granted based on certificates from accredited officials.
    In the Federal Register of April 2, 2018 (83 FR 13992), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
        21 CFR Section                  Form FDA No.            Number of     responses per   Total annual       Average burden per response      Total
                                                               respondents     respondent       responses                                         hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.11.......................  1996/Sanitary inspection of               2             200             400  1.5...............................      600
                                 dairy farms.
1210.12.......................  1995/Physical examination                 1               1               1  0.5 (30 minutes)..................      0.5
                                 of cows.
1210.13.......................  1994/Tuberculin test.......               1               1               1  0.5 (30 minutes)..................      0.5
1210.14.......................  1997/Sanitary inspections                 2               1               2  2.................................        4
                                 of plants.
1210.20.......................  1993/Application for permit               2               1               2  0.5 (30 minutes)..................        1
1210.23.......................  1815/Permits granted on                   2               1               2  0.5 (30 minutes)..................        1
                                 certificates.
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ...........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..................................      607
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

                                Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of
   21 CFR Section        Number of      records per    Total annual     Average burden         Total hours
                       recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records     per recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1210.15.............               2               1               2  0.05 (3 minutes).  0.10 (6 minutes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Upon review of the information collection, we have retained the
currently approved estimated burden. The estimated number of
respondents and hours per response are based on our experience with the
import milk permit program and the average number of import milk permit
holders over the past 3 years. Assuming two respondents will submit
approximately 200 Form FDA 1996 reports annually for a total of 600
responses, and that each response requires 1.5 hours, we estimate the
total burden is 600 hours.
    The Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion to
allow Form FDA 1815, a duly certified statement signed by an accredited
official of a foreign government, to be submitted in lieu of Forms FDA
1994 and 1995. To date, Form FDA 1815 has been submitted in lieu of
these forms. Because we have not received any Forms FDA 1994 or 1995 in
the last 3 years, we assume no more than one will be submitted
annually. We also assume each submission requires 0.5 hour for a total
of 0.5 burden hour annually.
    We estimate that two respondents will submit one Form FDA 1997
report annually, for a total of two responses. We estimate the
reporting burden to be 2 hours per response, for a total burden of 4
hours.
    We estimate that two respondents will submit one Form FDA 1993
report annually, for a total of two responses. We estimate the
reporting burden to be 0.5 hour per response, for a total burden of 1
hour.
    We estimate that two respondents will submit one Form FDA 1815
report annually, for a total of two responses. We estimate the
reporting burden to be 0.5 hour per response, for a total burden of 1
hour.
    With regard to records maintenance, we estimate that approximately
two recordkeepers will spend 0.05 hour annually maintaining the
additional pasteurization records required by Sec.  1210.15, for a
total of 0.10 hour annually.
    No burden has been estimated for the tagging requirement in Sec.
1210.22 because the information on the tag is either supplied by us
(permit number) or is disclosed to third parties as a usual and
customary part of the shipper's normal business activities (type of
product, shipper's name and address). Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the
public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal
Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public
is not subject to review by OMB under the PRA. Under 5 CFR
1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to
comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden
estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities
needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in
the normal course of business activities.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-14266 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21085-21086]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9049]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64285; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. By-
Laws

April 8, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On February 8, 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the By-Laws of its parent corporation,
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''). The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 24,
2011.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63925 (February 17,
2011), 76 FR 10418 (February 24, 2011) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NASDAQ proposes amending the By-Laws of NASDAQ OMX to: (i) Amend
the name of the Nominating Committee to the Nominating & Governance
Committee; (ii) amend the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. reference to reflect a
recent conversion to a limited liability company; and (iii) clarify By-
Law Article IV, Section 4.4 that broker nonvotes are not counted as a
vote cast either ``for'' or ``against'' a Director.
    Currently, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws provide for a Nominating Committee
that is appointed pursuant to the By-Laws. In addition to the
responsibilities listed in By-Law Article IV, Section 4.13(h), NASDAQ
states that the Nominating Committee also conducts certain governance
functions such as consulting with the Board and the management to
determine the characteristics, skills and experience desired for the
Board as a whole and for its individual members, overseeing the annual
director evaluation, and reviewing the overall effectiveness of the
Board.
    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to rename and change all
references to the ``Nominating Committee'' in the By-Laws, to the
``Nominating & Governance Committee'' so that the title of the
committee accurately reflects all of its current functions, including
those that are deemed governance functions. NASDAQ's proposal to rename
the Nominating Committee would not change the function of the
committee, but is intended to clarify the current functions and its
governance role with respect to the Board selection process.
    Additionally, NASDAQ proposes to amend Article 1, Section (o) of
NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws to change the reference to ``NASDAQ OMX PHLX,
Inc.'' to ``NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC'' to reflect a recently filed rule
change to NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. from a Delaware corporation to a
Delaware limited liability company.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62783 (August 27,
2010), 75 FR 54204 (September 3, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASDAQ proposes to add the words ``and broker nonvotes''
to NASDAQ OMX's By-Law Article IV, Section 4.4 to make clear that
broker nonvotes will not be counted as a vote cast either ``for'' or
``against'' that director's election. In its filing, NASDAQ noted that
NASDAQ OMX's past practice has been to not count a broker nonvote as a
vote cast either for or against a director's election. Accordingly,
this change would clarify this practice by codifying it into the By-
Laws.
    NASDAQ also stated that in 2010, NASDAQ OMX amended its By-Laws to
state that in an uncontested election, a majority voting standard would
apply to the election of its directors, requiring directors to be
elected by the holders of a majority of the votes cast at any meeting
for the election of directors at which a quorum is present in an
uncontested election.\5\ A plurality standard would still remain in a
contested election. In its filing, NASDAQ noted that, the practice of
not counting a broker nonvote as a vote cast either for or against a
director's election will remain unchanged by the amendment to a
majority vote standard. In support of this change, in its filing NASDAQ
states that under Delaware case law, broker nonvotes are not considered
as votes cast for or against a proposal or director nominee.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61876 (April 8,
2010), 75 FR 19436 (April 14, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-025).
    \6\ See Berlin v. Emerald Partners, 552 A.2d 482 494 (Del Supr.
1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change, 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.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(1) \9\ of the
Act, in particular, in that it is designed to enable the Exchange to be
so organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the
purposes of the Act. In addition, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to NASDAQ
OMX's By-Laws by changing the name of the Nominating Committee to the
Nominating and Governance Committee, and amending references to

an exchange name to reflect a corporate change to a limited liability
company, are both clarifying in nature. The Nominating Committee name
change will ensure that the committee's title accurately reflects its
functions, which, according to NASDAQ, includes governance through its
general review of the overall effectiveness of the Board and other
similar duties. Similarly, the change in NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws to
reflect a previously approved change of NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. to a
Delaware limited liability company will ensure that the By-Laws are
accurate and properly reflect an exchange entity name.
    Finally, as to the part of the proposal that will specifically set
forth in NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws that broker nonvotes will not be counted
as a vote cast either for or against in director elections, the
Commission believes that this change should help to provide
transparency to the election of directors process, especially in light
of NASDAQ OMX's recent change to a majority vote standard in the
uncontested election of directors. While in its filing NASDAQ notes
that it has always been NASDAQ OMX's practice to not count broker
nonvotes for or against in director elections, the impact of the broker
nonvotes and how such votes are counted will take on added significance
under NASDAQ OMX's newly adopted majority vote standard for director
elections. Accordingly, the Commission believes it is important that
the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws provide clarity on this issue, even though,
according to NASDAQ, Delaware case law would dictate the same result.
    Based on the above, the Commission believes that the changes being
proposed by NASDAQ to amend the By-Laws of its parent corporation,
NASDAQ OMX, is consistent with investor protection and the public
interest pursuant to Section 6(b)(5) of the Act since the changes will
ensure the accuracy of the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws, as well as clarify for
shareholders how broker nonvotes will be counted in director
elections.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As noted by NASDAQ in its filing, the other Boards of
Directors of the regulatory subsidiaries of NASDAQ OMX have approved
the changes to NASDAQ OMX's By-Laws. The Commission expects such
regulatory subsidiaries to file these changes shortly pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, that pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2011-025), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9049 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28935-28937]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0123; Notice 2]

Volkswagen Group of America, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2015-2016 Volkswagen passenger cars do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and
Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or Less. Volkswagen filed a report dated November 25, 2015,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Volkswagen then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556
requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin
Bressant, Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Volkswagen submitted
a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of
receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment
period, on March 1, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 10715). Two
comments were received.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 4,965 MY 2015-2016 Volkswagen e-Golf
passenger vehicles that were manufactured between May 21, 2014 and
November 14, 2015 and approximately 4,618 MY 2015-2016 Volkswagen Golf
R passenger vehicles that were manufactured between October 24, 2014
and November 14, 2015.

III. Noncompliance

    Volkswagen explains that the noncompliance is that the tire placard
does not contain the word ``none'' in the area reserved for the spare
tire specifications as required by paragraphs S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) of
FMVSS No. 110.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraphs S4.3(c) and (d) of FMVSS No. 110 require in pertinent
part:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3(a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3(h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar. . . .
    (c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure for front, rear and spare tires, subject to the limitations
of S4.3.4. For full size spare tires, the statement ``see above''
may, at the manufacturer's option replace manufacturer's recommended
cold tire inflation pressure. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure.
    (d) Tire size designation, indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size'' or ``original size,'' and ``spare tire'' or
``spare,'' for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase
for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the
statement ``see above'' may, at the manufacturer's option replace
the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the tire size designation;

V. Summary of Volkswagen's Analyses

    Volkswagen stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    (A) Volkswagen stated that the misprinted information on the tire
placard is applicable to a component (spare tire) that was not provided
with the subject vehicles.
    (B) Volkswagen explained that there is no effect on drivability,
vehicle safety or tire wear.
    (C) Volkswagen stated that it is not aware of any field or customer
complaints related to the subject non-compliance.
    In summation, Volkswagen believes that the described noncompliance
of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Volkswagen from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: Volkswagen explained that the tire placards on
the affected ``e-Golf'' and ``Golf R'' vehicles do not contain the
required word ``none'' in the spaces used to provide the spare tire
information (size and cold tire pressure) since no actual spare tires
were provided with these vehicles. On the ``e-Golf'' vehicles, the
placard indicates dashes (``- - -'') instead of the word ``none'' in
both the spare tire size and cold tire pressure spaces. On the ``Golf
R'' vehicles, the placard identifies the spare tire size as ``T125/
70R18'' and a cold tire pressure of ``420KPA, 61 PSI'' instead of the
word ``none'' in both spaces. Volkswagen stated its belief that the
subject mislabeling has no actual effect on the vehicle's drivability,
safety or tire wear.
    During the receipt notice comment period NHTSA received comments
from two individuals. Both individuals believed Volkswagen's
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The first
individual stated that the vehicle owner will know, or learn, that the
vehicle was not equipped with a spare tire and mentioned that NHTSA has
approved a similar petition from General Motors. The second individual
stated that he agrees with Volkswagen's reasoning and that the error is
truly inconsequential to the safety of the consumer and not detrimental
to the performance of the vehicles.
    In consideration of the e-golf vehicles where the placard uses
dashes instead of the word ``none'', The agency believes the dashes
will be interpreted to mean no spare tire was provided with the
vehicle. Vehicle owners will confirm their vehicles are not equipped
with a spare tire if, or when, there is a need for one. While some
owners may find this inconvenient, manufacturers are not required to
provide spare tires with vehicles they manufacture and sell. Therefore,
the agency agrees with Volkswagen and the commenters that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    In consideration of the Golf R vehicles where the placard specifies
an actual spare tire size and cold inflation pressure (T125/70R18
@420kPa/61PSI) instead of the word ``none'': The agency reviewed the
load carrying capacity associated with that tire size and inflation
pressure combination to ensure that it could meet the load requirements
for the vehicle's maximum loading, as specified by FMVSS No. 110, in
the event that a vehicle owner were to purchase and use that size tire
on the subject vehicle. If the spare tire information listed on the
placard was found to represent a tire and inflation pressure
combination inappropriate for the Golf R vehicles, the agency would
consider this noncompliance as consequential to motor vehicle safety.
However, that was not the case, the subject spare tire T125/70R18 at a
cold tire inflation pressure of 61 PSI has a much higher load carrying
capacity than the front and rear tires listed on the placard at the
listed inflation pressure (775 kg versus 580 kg \1\). In addition,
similar to the e-Golf owners, the Golf R vehicle owners will be able to
confirm that their vehicles are not equipped with a spare tire if, or
when, there is a need for one. Therefore, in the case of the Golf R
vehicles, the agency also agrees with Volkswagen and the commenters
that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, Standards
Manual, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, Volkswagen stated that they are not aware of any consumer
complaints, field communications, related to this noncompliance.
Volkswagen informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliances of
the subject vehicles so that all production vehicles on and after
November 15, 2015 will fully comply with FMVSS No. 110.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA
finds that Volkswagen has met its burden of demonstrating that the
subject FMVSS No. 110 noncompliance in the affected vehicles is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Volkswagen's
petition is hereby granted and Volkswagen is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this

petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles
under their control after Volkswagen notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-10916 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47562-47563]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0028; OMB No. 1660-0058]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Fire Management Assistance Grant Program.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved
information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Fire Management
Assistance Grant Program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2017-0028. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE., Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen Wineland, FMAG Program Manager,
Office of Response & Recovery, FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional
information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies
of the proposed collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collection is required for
Fire Management Assistance Grant Program (FMAGP) eligibility
determinations, grants management, and compliance with other federal
laws and regulations. FEMA's regulations, at 44 CFR part 204, specify
the information collections necessary to facilitate the provision of
assistance under the FMAGP. FMAGP was established under Section 420 of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5187, as amended by section 303 of the Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000, and authorizes the President to provide assistance to any
State or local government for the mitigation, management, and control
of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland that
threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster.

Collection of Information

    Title: Fire Management Assistance Grant Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0058.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 078-0-1, Request for Fire Management
Assistance Declaration; FEMA Form 089-0-24, Request for Fire Management
Sub-grant; FEMA Form 078-0-2, Principal Advisor's Report.
    Abstract: The information collection is required to make grant
eligibility determinations for the Fire Management Assistance Grant
Program (FMAGP). These eligibility-based grants and subgrants provide
assistance to any eligible State, Indian tribal government, or local
government for the mitigation, management, and control of a fire on
public or private forest land or grassland that is threatening such
destruction as would constitute a major disaster. The data/information
gathered in the forms is used to determine the severity of the
threatening fire, current and forecast weather conditions, and
associated factors related to the fire and its potential threat as a
major disaster.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 178.
    Number of Responses: 553.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 811 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: The estimated annual cost
to respondents for the hour burden is $56,281.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: There are
no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for
technical services.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: There is no
annual start-up or capital costs.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: The cost to
the Federal Government is $612,372.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond,
including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Tammi Hines,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-22017 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39469-39471]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56051; File No. SR-BSE-2007-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Extension of the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund Option
Pilot Program Until January 18, 2008

July 12, 2007.
    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 July 3, 2007, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``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 substantially prepared by BSE. The
Exchange has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend an existing pilot program that
increases the position and exercise limits for options on the iShares
Russell 2000 Index Fund (``IWM'') traded on the Exchange (``IWM Option
Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change is available at
BSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.bostonstock.com
.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, BSE 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.
BSE 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the IWM Option
Pilot Program for an additional six-month period, through January 18,
2008,\5\ and to make non-substantive changes to simplify the rule text
describing the IWM Option Pilot Program. The IWM Option Pilot Program
increases the position and exercise limits for IWM options traded on
the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the
IWM Option Pilot Program. The Exchange represents that it has not
encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the IWM Option
Pilot Program since its inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ January 18, 2008 is the third Friday of the month (or
expiration Friday), which is the day on which January 2008 IWM
options will expire.
    \6\ Pursuant to Chapter III, Section 7 of the Boston Options
Exchange (``BOX'') Rules, the exercise limit established under
Chapter III, Section 7 for IWM options shall be equivalent to the
position limit prescribed for IWM options in Supplementary Material
.01 to Chapter III, Section 7. The increased exercise limits would
only be in effect during the pilot period and the proposed six-month
extension of that pilot period through January 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal that established the IWM Option Pilot Program was
designated by the Commission to be effective and operative upon filing
and provided that it would run from January 23, 2007 through July 22,
2007.\7\ In that filing, the Exchange explained that in June 2005, as a
result of a 2-for-1 stock split, the position limit for IWM options was
temporarily increased from 250,000 contracts (covering 25,000,000
shares) to 500,000 contracts (covering 50,000,000 shares). At the time
of the split, the furthest IWM option expiration date was January 2007.
Therefore, the temporary increase of the IWM position limit was
scheduled to automatically revert to the pre-split level (as provided
for in connection with the Chapter III, Section 7 Pilot Program) of
250,000 contracts after expiration in January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55171 (January 25,
2007), 72 FR 4549 (January 31, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange described in the proposal that established the IWM
Option Pilot Program, the Exchange believes that a position limit of
250,000 contracts is too low and may be a deterrent to the successful
trading of IWM options. Importantly, options on IWM are 1/10th the size
of options on the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT''), which have a position
limit of 50,000 contracts.\8\ Traders who trade IWM options to hedge
positions in RUT options are likely to find a position limit of 250,000
contracts in IWM options too restrictive and insufficient to properly
hedge. For example, if a trader held 50,000 RUT options and wanted to
hedge that position with IWM options, the trader would need--at a
minimum--500,000 IWM options to properly hedge the position. Therefore,
the Exchange continues to believe that a position limit of 250,000
contracts is too low and may adversely affect market participants'
ability to provide liquidity in this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Chapter XIV, Section 5 of BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange also described in the proposal that established the
IWM Option Pilot Program, IWM options have grown to become one of the
largest options contracts in terms of trading volume. For example,
through May 29, 2007, year-to-date industry volume in IWM options has
averaged over 460,000 contracts per day, for a total of over 61 million
contracts. BOX alone has averaged 15,386 IWM option contracts per day
during that time, for a total of almost 2 million contracts. In
contrast, QQQQ options, which have a position limit of 900,000
contracts, have averaged almost 575,000 contracts per day in 2007.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Please note contract volume data is quoted using one-sided
figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that maintaining the increased position and
exercise limits for IWM options will lead to a more liquid and more
competitive market environment for IWM options that will benefit
customers interested in this product. In fact, the Exchange has
received positive feedback from market participants, who have expressed
a desire that the IWM Option Pilot Program be renewed. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes that the above stated reasons justify
the IWM Option Pilot Program and requests that the Commission extend
the IWM Option Pilot Program for an additional six-month time period,
through January 18, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that is 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does no intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\14\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would permit position and exercise limits for options on IWM to
continue at 500,000 option contracts for a six-month pilot period.

For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to
be operative upon filing with the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing
notice requirement.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-BSE-2007-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-30. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BSE. 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-BSE-2007-30 and should be
submitted on or before August 8, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E7-13879 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12106-12108]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4975]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-OW-2011-0112; FRL-9275-5]

Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities in
Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities; State of Kansas; Notice
of Self-Certification Program Authorization, Request for Public
Comment, Opportunity for Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that on April 19, 2010, the State of
Kansas was deemed authorized under section 404(a) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), to administer and enforce requirements
for a renovation, repair and painting program in accordance with
section 402(c)(3) of TSCA. This notice also announces that EPA is
seeking comment during a 45-day public comment period, and is providing
an opportunity to request a public hearing within the first 15 days of
this comment period, on whether Kansas's program is at least as
protective as the Federal program and provides for adequate
enforcement. This notice also announces that the authorization of the
Kansas 402(c)(3) program, which was deemed authorized by regulation and
statute on April 19, 2010, will continue without further notice unless
EPA, based on its own review and/or comments received during the
comment period, disapproves the Kansas program application.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number EPA-R07-OW-2011-
0112, must be received on or before April 18, 2011. In addition, a
public hearing request must be submitted on or before March 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for a public hearing may be submitted
by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed
instructions for each method as provided in Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is
imperative that you identify docket control number EPA-R07-OW-2011-0112
in the subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal McIntyre, Technical Contact,
Toxics and Pesticides Branch, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas
City, KS 66101, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, to entities
offering Lead Safe Renovation courses, and to firms and individuals
engaged in renovation and remodeling activities of pre-1978 housing in
the State of Kansas. Individuals and firms falling under the North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 231118, 238210,
238220, 238320, 531120, 531210, 53131, e.g., General Building
Contractors/Operative Builders, Renovation Firms, Individual
Contractors, and Special Trade Contractors like Carpenters, Painters,
Drywall workers and Plumbers, ``Home Improvement'' Contractors, as well
as Property Management Firms and some Landlords are also affected by
these rules. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected
by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this notice could
also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and
others in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get additional information, including copies of this
document or other related documents?

    1. Electronically: EPA has established an official record for this
action under docket control number EPA-R07-OW-2011-0112. This docket
may be accessed through http://www.regulations.gov. The official record
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, this
notice, the State of Kansas 402(c)(3) program authorization
application, any public comments received during an applicable comment
period, and other information related to this action, including any
information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI).
    2. In person: You may read this document, and certain other related
documents, by visiting Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
1000 SW Jackson, Suite 330, Topeka, KS 66612-1365; contact person,
Shannon Steinbauer, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also read
this document, and certain other related documents, by visiting the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas
City, KS 66101. You should arrange your visit to the EPA office by
contacting the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

C. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or
electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket control number EPA-R07-OW-2011-0112 in the subject
line on the first page of your response.
    1. By mail or in person or by courier: Submit or deliver your
comments and public hearing requests to: Crystal McIntyre, Technical
Contact, Toxics and Pesticides Branch, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street,
Kansas City, KS 66101. The Regional office is open from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
    2. Electronically: You may submit your comments and public hearing
requests electronically by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or mail
your computer disk to the address identified above. Do not submit any
information electronically that you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI). Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks
in Microsoft Word or ASCII file format.

D. How should I handle CBI information that I want to submit to the
agency?

    Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-
mail. Clearly mark on each page the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you
mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to
EPA as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If you have any questions

about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the
technical person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing that on April 19, 2010, the State of Kansas was
deemed authorized under section 404(a) of TSCA, and 40 CFR
745.324(d)(2), to administer and enforce requirements for a renovation,
repair and painting program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of
TSCA. This notice also announces that EPA is seeking comment and
providing an opportunity to request a public hearing on whether the
state program is at least as protective as the Federal program and
provides for adequate enforcement. The 402(c)(3) program ensures that
training providers are accredited to teach renovation classes, that
individuals performing renovation activities are properly trained and
certified as renovators, that firms are certified as renovation firms,
and that specific work practices are followed during renovation
activities. On April 19, 2010, Kansas submitted an application under
section 404 of TSCA requesting authorization to administer and enforce
requirements for a renovation, repair and painting program in
accordance with section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, and submitted a self-
certification that this program is at least as protective as the
Federal program and provides for adequate enforcement. Therefore,
pursuant to section 404(a) of TSCA, and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2), the
Kansas renovation program is deemed authorized as of the date of
submission and until such time as the Agency disapproves the program
application or withdraws program authorization. Pursuant to section
404(b) of TSCA and 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2), EPA is providing notice,
opportunity for public comment and opportunity for a public hearing on
whether the state program application is at least as protective as the
Federal program and provides for adequate enforcement. If a hearing is
requested and granted, EPA will issue a Federal Register notice
announcing the date, time and place of the hearing. The authorization
of the Kansas 402(c)(3) program, which was deemed authorized by
regulation and statute on April 19, 2010, will continue without further
notice unless EPA, based on its own review and/or comments received
during the comment period, disapproves the program application.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    On October 28, 1992, the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992, Public Law 102-550, became law. Title X of that statute was the
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. That Act
amended TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) by adding Title IV (15 U.S.C.
2681-2692), entitled Lead Exposure Reduction. In the Federal Register
dated April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21692), EPA promulgated final TSCA section
402(c)(3) regulations governing renovation activities. The regulations
require that in order to do renovation activities for compensation,
renovators must first be properly trained and certified, must be
associated with a certified renovation firm, and must follow specific
work practice standards, including recordkeeping requirements. In
addition, the rule prescribes requirements for the training and
certification of dust sampling technicians. EPA believes that
regulation of renovation activities will help to reduce the exposures
that cause serious lead poisonings, especially in children under age 6,
who are particularly susceptible to the hazards of lead.
    Under section 404 of TSCA, a state may seek authorization from EPA
to administer and enforce its own renovation, repair and painting
program in lieu of the Federal program. The regulation governing the
authorization of a state program under section 402 of TSCA is codified
at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. States that choose to apply for program
authorization must submit a complete application to the appropriate
regional EPA office for review. Those applications will be reviewed by
EPA within 180 days of receipt of the complete application. To receive
EPA approval, a state must demonstrate that its program is at least as
protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program,
and provides for adequate enforcement, as required by section 404(b) of
TSCA. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q provide the
detailed requirements a state program must meet in order to obtain EPA
approval. A state may choose to certify that its own renovation, repair
and painting program meets the requirements for EPA approval, by
submitting a letter signed by the Governor or Attorney General stating
that the program is at least as protective of human health and the
environment as the Federal program and provides for adequate
enforcement. Upon submission of such a certification letter the program
is deemed authorized pursuant to TSCA section 404(a) and 40 CFR
745.324(d)(2). This authorization becomes ineffective, however, if EPA
disapproves the application or withdraws the program authorization.

III. State Program Description Summary

    The following program summary is from Kansas's self-certification
application:

Program Summary

    The State of Kansas has administered regulations concerning lead-
based paint in housing since 2000. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has authorized the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) to operate a lead poisoning prevention program in
Kansas to advance public health. The program at KDHE has provided for
the oversight and accreditation of firms and individuals who provide
specific lead-based paint activity training. KDHE has also provided for
the licensing and oversight of firms who engage in specialized
activities such as lead-based paint abatement, and environmental
inspections and risk assessments that identify lead-based paint in
housing and other properties such as schools and daycare centers. KDHE
certifies and oversees individuals who are trained and then seek to
perform lead-based activities within the state. KDHE also operates a
program that oversees the contractors in the state, who for
compensation, engage in activities that could disturb painted surfaces
on homes constructed prior to 1978 (target housing). The program known
as the Pre Renovation Education (PRE) program requires that homeowners
and occupants of target properties be properly notified about the
dangers associated with the work that could affect the occupants and
provide educational materials that are designed to help protect their
health. Kansas is one of only two states nationally that has operated a
PRE program under EPA authorization.
    Today EPA, Kansas, and KDHE are expanding authorizations to include
the newly promulgated Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule. RRP
enhances PRE and requires that contracting firms who perform work for
compensation in target housing be licensed and that individuals who
perform work which disturbs lead-based paint are properly trained in
work practices that protect human health public safety. Records of the
use of proper work practices, work training, and owner/occupant
disclosure must be maintained as part of the RRP

program in Kansas. KDHE will oversee the firm licensing, worker
training, work practice adherence and record retention. KDHE modernized
and enhanced the operational capacity of the Healthy Homes and Lead
Hazard Prevention (HHLHP) program in order to assist the regulated
entities and individuals in Kansas achieve compliance with the RRP
regulations. HHLHP will also perform extensive compliance assistance
and educational outreach to homeowners, tenants, landlords and other
individuals who request it in order to advance the success of the lead
poisoning prevention efforts in the state. KDHE has enhanced the PRE
rule in Kansas to require retailers who sell paint removal and
contractor supplies to post educational signage in plain view near the
painting supplies that explain the hazards of lead-based paint and
where to receive more information about health protection. The poster
also reminds contractors of their duty to comply with the PRE and RRP
regulations. KDHE will advance the program through compliance training,
oversight, and enforcement activities that can include financial
penalties of $5,000 or more under Kansas law.

IV. Federal Overfiling

    Section 404(b) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to violate,
or fail or refuse to comply with, any requirement of an approved state
program. Therefore, EPA reserves the right to exercise its enforcement
authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to
comply with, any requirement of an authorized state program.

V. Withdrawal of Authorization

    Pursuant to section 404(c) of TSCA, the EPA Administrator may
withdraw authorization of a state or Indian Tribal renovation, repair
and painting program, after notice and opportunity for corrective
action, if the program is not being administered or enforced in
compliance with standards, regulations, and other requirements
established under the authorization. The procedures EPA will follow for
the withdrawal of an authorization are found at 40 CFR 745.324(i).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Lead, Renovation,
Renovation work practice standards, Renovation training, Renovation
certification, Renovation notification, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, State of Kansas.

    Dated: February 22, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-4975 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30321-30322]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-P-2174]

Determination That ATROVENT (Ipratropium Bromide) Metered Spray,
0.021 Micrograms/Spray and 0.042 Micrograms/Spray, Were Not Withdrawn
From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide) metered spray, 0.021
micrograms (mcg)/spray and 0.042 mcg/spray, were not withdrawn from
sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means
that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated
new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it
will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products
as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide) metered spray, 0.021 mcg/spray, is
the subject of NDA 020393 and ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide) metered
spray, 0.042 mcg/spray, is the subject of NDA 020394, both held by
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and initially approved on
October 20, 1995. ATROVENT is indicated for the symptomatic relief of
rhinorrhea associated with allergic and nonallergic perennial rhinitis
in adults and children age 6 years and older.
    In letters dated December 22, 2017, Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., requested withdrawal of NDA 020393 and NDA
020394 for ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide). In the Federal Register of
July 12, 2018 (83 FR 32305), FDA announced that it was withdrawing
approval of NDA 020393 and NDA 020394, effective August 13, 2018.
    Lachman Consulting Services, Inc., submitted a citizen petition
dated November 5, 2020 (Docket No. FDA-2020-P-2174), under 21 CFR
10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether ATROVENT
(ipratropium bromide) metered spray, 0.021 mcg/spray and 0.042 mcg/
spray, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide) metered spray,
0.021 mcg/spray and 0.042 mcg/spray, were not withdrawn for reasons of
safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide) metered
spray, 0.021 mcg/spray and 0.042 mcg/spray, were withdrawn for reasons
of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for
records concerning the withdrawal of ATROVENT (ipratropium bromide)
metered spray, 0.021 mcg/spray and 0.042 mcg/spray, from sale. We have
also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible
postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would
indicate that these drug products were withdrawn from sale for reasons
of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list ATROVENT (ipratropium
bromide) metered spray, 0.021 mcg/spray and 0.042 mcg/spray, in the
``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book. The
``Discontinued Drug Product List''

delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness.
    FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved
ANDAs that refer to these drug products. Additional ANDAs for this drug
product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all
other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If
FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised
to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to
submit such labeling.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11800 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18681-18683]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-70-000.
    Applicants: Sunrise Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval under Section 203 of FPA of
Sunrise Power Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/21/14.
    Accession Number: 20140321-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/14.

    Docket Numbers: EC14-71-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Transfer of
Jurisdictional Assets and Request for Expedited Action of Mesquite
Solar 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2135-004.

    Applicants: Spindle Hill Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 24, 2013 Triennial Report of
Spindle Hill Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-540-005; ER12-539-005; ER10-1346-005; ER10-
1348-005; ER12-2205-004; ER10-1821-008; ER11-4475-008.
    Applicants: APDC, Inc., Atlantic Power Energy Services (US) LLC,
Frederickson Power L.P., Manchief Power Company LLC, Meadow Creek
Project Company LLC, Rockland Wind Farm LLC, Goshen Phase II LLC.
    Description: Errata to December 27, 2013 Updated Market Power
Analysis of APDC, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 3/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140319-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1522-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-03-24--Entergy March Notice of Succession
Supplement to be effective N/A under ER14-1522 Filing.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1561-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement No. 3668
to be effective 2/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1562-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tacoma IA SA No. 460 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1563-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement No. 3667
to be effective 2/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1564-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement 3666 to be
effective 2/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1565-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original SA No. 3775 and Cancellation of SA No. 3103--
AMP-Williamstown NITSA to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1566-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement No. 3587
to be effective 2/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1567-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement No. 3586
to be effective 2/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1568-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of CIAC Agreement with Guthrie County REC to be
effective 5/24/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1569-000.
    Applicants: Dynegy Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be
effective 3/25/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1570-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement No. 3566
to be effective 2/21/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1571-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM submits First Revised Service Agreement No. 3685
to be effective 2/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140324-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1572-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: LGIA with RE Astoria LLC to be effective 3/26/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1573-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company
    Description: SWEPCO-AECC Bethel Heights FA to be effective 2/24/
2014.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1574-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: SWEPCO-AECC Northeast Texarkana 138kV FA to be
effective 2/24/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH14-7-000.
    Applicants: DTE Energy Company.
    Description: FERC-65-B Waiver Notification and FERC-65 Notification
of Holding Company Status of DTE Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 3/25/14.
    Accession Number: 20140325-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings.

    Docket Numbers: RD14-9-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Description: Joint petition for Approval of WECC Regional
Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-2-Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled
Flow (USF) Relief.
    Filed Date: 12/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20131220-5432.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: RD14-9-000.
    Applicants: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Description: Supplemental Information Filing of Western Electricity
Coordinating Council.
    Filed Date: 3/21/14.
    Accession Number: 20140321-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 25, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07442 Filed 4-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P