MemoTo:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208
From:	Benjamin Ellies, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD
CC:	Michael Olechiw, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD
Date:	August 9[th], 2021
Re:	Docket of Reference Materials for VMT Rebound (Chapter 2.4 in DRIA NPRM LDV)
	Hello Michael:

      The analysis conducted to generate the tables in Chapter 2.4 of the DRIA of the NPRM for the LDV rule has been added to the docket.  The file is an EPA internal MS Excel file titled, "Analysis for RIA Tables 2-8 through 2-10 (CBI removed).xlsx"

      The file contains future compliance calculations of each model type based on 2021 Model Year certification data.  Sales volumes were removed from the file (as sales are treated as confidential business information), however the aggregated sales percentages for each vehicle class have been maintained in the summary tables.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14759-14760]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05618]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4576-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Mississippi; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4576-DR), dated December
31, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued December 31, 2020.

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: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated December 31, 2020, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Mississippi resulting from Hurricane Zeta during the period of
October 28 to October 29, 2020, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Mississippi.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brett H. Howard, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Mississippi have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Stone Counties
for Individual Assistance.
    George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Perry, Stone, and
Wayne Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Mississippi are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    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 Jr.,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-05618 Filed 3-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64658-64660]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0629]

Operating Limitations for Unscheduled Operations at John F.
Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of Comments to Proposed Order.

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

SUMMARY: On July 17, 2008, the FAA issued a proposed order requesting
written views on the FAA's tentative determination to temporarily limit
unscheduled aircraft operations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport (JFK) and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). The
temporary limit was intended to supplement previously issued FAA orders
limiting scheduled operations at both airports by addressing congestion
related delays that would otherwise occur pending the ongoing
rulemaking action for JFK and EWR. This disposition of comments
explains the FAA's rationale for not presently adopting the proposed
order and discusses the comments received in response to the proposed
order.

ADDRESSES: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket. Alternatively, go to the Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this disposition of comments contact: Gerry Shakley, System Operations
Services, Air Traffic Organization; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this disposition of comments contact: Rebecca B.
MacPherson, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You may obtain an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.

Discussion of Written Submissions and the Final Order

    The FAA published the Notice of Proposed Order, ``Operating
Limitations for Unscheduled Operations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport,'' on July 17, 2008.
The FAA concludes that it is unnecessary to issue a final order because
the limits proposed are imposed by a final rule, ``Congestion
Management Rule for John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark
Liberty International Airport,'' (``Final Rule'') issued on October 10,
2008.\1\ However, if the Final Rule is rendered ineffective for any
reason, the FAA may adopt the proposed order as final without an
opportunity for further comment. Accordingly, the comments to the
proposed order are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 60544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Notice requested comments on several aspects of the proposed
order, as well as any general comments. The comment period closed on
July 28, 2008. The FAA received one comment during the comment period
and eleven additional comments after the closing date. These comments
are from interested parties including airlines, all-cargo air carriers,
a public charter operator, and industry organizations. Several
commenters generally support the FAA's goal of reducing congestion at
the New York area airports, and three commenters support the proposal
in its entirety. Commenters opposing the

proposed order contend that it fails to address the nature of charter,
business, and general aviation operations and the effect of the
proposed order on those segments of the aviation industry. Comments to
the Notice are addressed below by topic. The FAA also received seven
comments in response to ``Congestion Management Rule for John F.
Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International
Airport'' \2\ regarding unscheduled operations that raised
substantially the same issues and are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. FAA-2008-0517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All-Cargo Operations

    The comments submitted by the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) best
summarize the concerns of all-cargo air carriers. CAA contends that the
proposed order will have a serious, adverse impact on all-cargo
carriers, arguing that, although most operations are conducted during
nighttime hours, these carriers cannot always plan in advance to meet
service demands during congested hours. All-cargo carriers frequently
conduct unscheduled operations on short notice, and many guarantee
service by a time certain. Because of these combined circumstances, a
failure to obtain a required reservation may result in liability to the
shipper. CAA believes that reservations will not be available for last
minute operations, which it argues constitutes an unfair and unlawful
discrimination against all-cargo carriers and other unscheduled
operations. Additionally, CAA contends that because of the nature of
the all-cargo industry segment, it is not practical to use other area
airports for unscheduled operations. One all-cargo carrier claims that
the proposed order will preclude it from competing as an ``ad-hoc
charter operator'' because its operations often are planned two hours
in advance.
    CAA suggests that all-cargo carriers be treated similarly to
military and public aircraft, and aircraft operating under contracts
with the Department of Defense or the United States Postal Service to
carry mail, because of the ``mission-critical all-cargo business
model.'' Under this treatment, all-cargo carriers would be subject to
the order and would need a reservation, but they would be given
preferential treatment. Another all-cargo carrier requests that a
number of reservations be allocated to allow all-cargo operations on an
as-needed basis.
    The purpose of the reservation system is to allow for unscheduled
operations, and the number of reservations available should accommodate
operations in the desired hour of operation or in surrounding hours. It
is impractical to allocate a certain number of reservations for last
minute operations when the carriers themselves cannot identify when
these operations will be needed.
    Unscheduled operations can be accommodated under the Final Rule if
operators are flexible in their arrival and departure times. Based on
data from FAA's Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) for the year
ended May 31, 2008, most unscheduled flights can be accommodated in
visual meteorological conditions or through capacity in an adjacent
hour (one hour on either side of the actual hour of operation in the
data). The ETMS data shows that fewer than one flight per day on
average would be affected by the Final Rule at each airport, where
there is insufficient capacity in the adjacent two hours to handle
excess demand. Based on this data, with minor accommodations in flight
plans, unscheduled operators should be able to obtain reservations and
operate without incurring additional costs. However, if an operator
cannot obtain a reservation for its preferred time, its planned flight
times may need to be revised because of the limited available
reservations. This is similar to the burden borne by scheduled
operators that conduct flights during available reservation times.

Private Charter and Business Aviation

    The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) contends that the
proposed order unfairly targets a segment of the industry, unscheduled
operations, that does not contribute significantly to the capacity
constraints at the airports. Additionally, because of the nature of
their business, these carriers cannot plan operations 72 hours in
advance, and reservations may be unavailable at the last minute when
they are needed to perform contractual obligations.
    As discussed above, unscheduled operations can be accommodated
under the Final Rule if operators are flexible in their arrival and
departure times. Additionally, the FAA believes that general aviation
demand and a segment of flights conducted as business and private
charters can be accommodated within regional capacity.

Number of Reservations and Applicable Hours

    NACA argues that the use of calendar year 2007 as a baseline is
inappropriate because only LaGuardia was operating under an
administrative order limiting the number of hourly operations. NACA
further argues that with all three major New York airports operating
under limitations, there is no alternative for unscheduled operations.
    CAA contends that the FAA failed to disclose detailed information
related to its analysis of unscheduled operations, including what types
of operations comprise the baseline and at what time of day or night
those operations occurred. The CAA contends that meaningful comment to
the proposed order or analysis of possible alternatives cannot be made
without this detailed information.
    The FAA understands CAA's and NACA's concerns. However, the
analysis of impact on JFK and EWR in the final regulatory evaluation
for the Final Rule (contained in docket number FAA-2008-0517) assumed
that the reservation restrictions were in place for the year ended May
31, 2008.\3\ (See ``Availability of Rulemaking Documents'' section for
information on how to access the docket.) Therefore, that analysis
should reflect the conditions at the three major New York airports
after the Final Rule becomes effective. Additionally, that analysis
considered all operations during the slot-controlled hours, as
indicated in the proposal. Unscheduled demand included operations that
were not allocated Operating Authorizations under the FAA's order for
scheduled flights. More detailed information regarding the exact times
or type of operation would not change the net effect of the reservation
system because the reservation system does not distinguish between the
various types of unscheduled operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FAA recently reduced the number of available hourly
reservations at LaGuardia to reflect historic usage and in
recognition that additional operations at LaGuardia would further
increase delays and congestion in the region. 73 FR 48428 (Aug. 19,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) argues that a
reservation system for visual flight rules (VFR) operations is not
justified because air traffic control permits these operations only
when weather and traffic conditions allow. AOPA also argues that the
proposed order ignores recent announcements by airlines to reduce
capacity and the effect of that reduced capacity on the congestion at
JFK and EWR. AOPA contends that the proposed order unfairly burdens
general aviation operators at JFK and EWR
    The FAA appreciates AOPA's concerns, but the Final Rule permits
additional operations when capacity exists and significant delays are
not expected. A reservation system for additional VFR operations
maintains an equitable and orderly mechanism for allowing additional
traffic at JFK and

EWR and provides greater opportunity to plan for airport demand.
Additionally, although airlines may reduce capacity in the short term,
many of the temporary reductions are in less congested hours. Moreover,
it is important to have a comprehensive, long-term system in place to
manage congestion and future growth at these airports. The FAA intends
to use its authority under the Final Rule to provide reservations for
unscheduled operations when reservations set aside for scheduled
operations are not expected to be used, when capacity exists in the
system, and when events or other local circumstances warrant special
consideration. The FAA believes the flexibility to add reservations in
positive operating conditions could allow greater access by general
aviation and other unscheduled operations without the risks of having
to implement restrictions later in the day.

Use of Reservations for Alternate Diversion Flights

    NACA argues that the entire reservation allocation process will
encourage individual carriers to hoard unscheduled reservations to
protect their operations and then fail to use those reservations,
especially for those awarded for alternate diversion scenarios. NACA
contends that the proposed order encourages this behavior because there
is no accountability for failure to use the reservation.
    The FAA appreciates NACA's concerns regarding operators obtaining
reservations and failing to use them. There are limited reservations,
and operators should not hoard or fail to cancel unneeded ones because
of the impact on other operators. The FAA did not propose a penalty for
failing to use a reservation. However, the FAA will monitor
reservations and actual operations to determine if abuse occurs and
will work with individual operators to eliminate any abusive behavior.
The final rule for JFK and EWR does not contain a requirement to obtain
a reservation when filing flight plans listing those airports as
alternates because such a requirement would result in unnecessary
reservations that would remain unused in most cases. A reservation
requirement applies only to actual operations at the airports, except
in the case of a declared emergency. The FAA understands that there may
be other safety or operational justifications that could dictate the
use of an alternate airport. However, this is not expected to occur on
a regular basis, and the FAA would consider the individual
circumstances as part of any enforcement proceeding.
    Delta and Continental suggest that the FAA eliminate all
unscheduled operations during the peak hours to maximize the efficiency
of the airports.
    The FAA considered these comments but believes that the Final Rule
strikes the appropriate balance between the operational needs of the
various users of the airports.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Limitations on Unscheduled Operations

    NetJets contends that the economic analysis for limiting
unscheduled operations did not demonstrate any congestion reduction
benefit or properly quantify the costs to aircraft operators. Without
this analysis, NetJets contends there is no evidence that the proposed
limitations are justified, and the public has had no opportunity to
comment on this justification.
    The economic analysis addressed the costs and benefits of
implementing the comprehensive congestion management plan and includes
limits on unscheduled operations. Because all operations contribute to
the congestion and delay problems at JFK and EWR, the solution must
incorporate limitations on all operations. Under the Final Rule,
scheduled operations bear the majority of the operational reduction.
Even though unscheduled operations, which are a small fraction of the
total operations at JFK and EWR, are not the root cause of the
congestion and delay, the current situation where demand outstrips
supply means that the addition of even one operation can have a
disproportionate effect on congestion and delay. Accordingly, these
limitations on unscheduled operations are part of the comprehensive
plan to reduce congestion and delay.

Periodic Review of Orders

    NACA requests the FAA to review the necessity of limitations on
unscheduled operations on a semi-annual basis in conjunction with the
submission of summer and winter flight schedules to ensure that all
operators may share in any additional capacity.
    The FAA agrees that available airport capacity could potentially be
used by unscheduled operators. The Final Rule provides for additional
reservations when weather and capacity conditions allow, which includes
decreased demand by scheduled operators. Additionally the Air Traffic
Organization, primarily through the Air Traffic Control System Command
Center, constantly reviews demand at JFK and EWR, and will respond
accordingly to changes in capacity by adding reservations that do not
result in significant delay.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 23, 2008.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E8-25850 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74969-74970]
[DOCID:fr13de06-79]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54875; File No. SR-ISE-2006-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to an ISE Stock Exchange Fee Waiver

December 5, 2006.
    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 November 30, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory
organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) 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)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to extend a
fee waiver related to the ISE Stock Exchange. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site, http://www.iseoptions.com
, at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 proposal. 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend a fee waiver
related to the trading of equity securities on the ISE Stock Exchange
(``ISE Stock''), a facility of the Exchange. The Exchange currently
waives all execution fees in an effort to promote trading on ISE
Stock.\5\ The fee waiver is scheduled to expire on December 1, 2006. In
an effort to continue the promotion of ISE Stock, the Exchange proposes
to extend the waiver of all execution fees until March 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54561 (October 2,
2006), 71 FR 59844 (October 11, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in that it is an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would impose no
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 did not solicit or receive any written comments with
respect to the proposal.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon
filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2006-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-70. 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. Copies of such
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-ISE-2006-70 and should be submitted on or before January
3, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21165 Filed 12-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26772-26773]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10883]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9531-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. Seq.). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Westlund<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and please refer to the appropriate EPA
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB approvals

EPA ICR Number 1893.06; Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and Cc; 40
CFR part 62 subpart GGG; was approved on 04/10/2013; OMB Number 2060-
0430; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1573.13; Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications
and Special Permits (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 264 and 270; was approved
on 04/10/2013; OMB Number 2050-0009; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved
without change.
EPA ICR Number 1060.16; NSPS for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels; 40 CFR part 60 subparts A, AA
and AAa; was approved on 04/10/2013; OMB Number 2060-0038; expires on
04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2050.05; NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing; 40 CFR
part 63 subparts A and RRRRR; was approved on 04/10/2013; OMB Number
2060-0538; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1415.10; NESHAP for Perchlorethylene Dry Cleaning
Facilities; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and M; was approved on 04/12/
2013; OMB Number 2060-0234; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without
change.
EPA ICR Number 1788.11; NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production; 40
CFR part 63, subparts A and HH; was approved on 04/12/2013; OMB Number
2060-0417; expires on 06/30/2013; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1487.12; Consolidated Superfund Information Collection
Request (Renewal); 40 CFR part 35, subpart O; 40 CFR part 300, Appendix
A; and 40 CFR 300.425, 300.430 and 300.435; was approved on 04/12/2013;
OMB Number 2050-0179; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1572.10; Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements and
Special Waste Processes and

Types (Renewal); 40 CFR 264.11, 264.19, 264.28, 264.57, 264.113(e),
264.191, 264.192(g), 264.193(i), 264.196, 264.197(b), 264.222(b),
264.223(b) and (c), 264.226(c), 264.226(d), 264.227, 264.252(b),
264.253(b) and (c), 264.254, 264.276, 264.278(a)-(f) and (h),
264.278(g), 264.302(b), 264.303(b), 264.304(b) and (c), 264.314,
264.343, 264.347, 264.571, 264.573, 264.574, 264.603, 264.1033(j),
264.1034-264.1036, 264.1061, 264.1062-264.1065, 264.1101, 265.11,
265.19, 265.26, 265.34, 265.44, 265.113(e), 265.191-265.193, 265.196,
265.197(b), 265.221, 265.222, 265.223, 265.225, 265.226, 265.229,
265.254, 265.255, 265.259, 265.276, 265.278, 265.28, 265.301, 265.302,
265.303, 265.304, 265.314, 265.352, 265.383, 265.404, 265.441, 265.443,
265.444, 265.1033-265.1035, 265.1061-265.1064, 265.1101, and 266.70(c);
was approved on 04/12/2013; OMB Number 2050-0050; expires on 04/30/
2016; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 2478.01; Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural
Gas Well Production Facilities; Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
(Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation), North Dakota (Final Rule); 40
CFR 49.4161; was approved on 04/12/2013; OMB Number 2008-0001; expires
on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2046.07; NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants; 40
CFR part 63 subparts A and IIIII; was approved on 04/15/2013; OMB
Number 2060-0542; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2219.04; Tips and Complaints Regarding Environmental
Violations (Renewal); was approved on 04/15/2013; OMB Number 2020-0032;
expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2240.04; NESHAP for Area Sources: Polyvinyl Chloride and
Copolymer Production, Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper
Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals--Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 63 subparts A, DDDDDD, EEEEEE, FFFFFF and
GGGGGG; was approved on 04/15/2013; OMB Number 2060-0596; expires on
04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2354.03; NESHAP for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing; 40 CFR
part 63 subparts A and DDDDDDD; was approved on 04/15/2013; OMB Number
2060-0635; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2014.05; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the
HCFC Allowance System (Renewal); 40 CFR part 82 subpart A; was approved
on 04/18/2013; OMB Number 2060-0498; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved
without change.
EPA ICR Number 1797.06; NSPS for Standards of Performance for Storage
Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for which Construction, Reconstruction or
Modification Commenced after June 11, 1973, and prior to May 19, 1978
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 60 subparts A and K; was approved on 04/19/2013;
OMB Number 2060-0442; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2098.06; NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining; 40 CFR
part 63 subparts A and TTTTT; was approved on 04/19/2013; OMB Number
2060-0536; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2356.03; NESHAP for Chemical Preparations Industry; 40
CFR part 63 subparts A and BBBBBBB; was approved on 04/19/2013; OMB
Number 2060-0636; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1739.07; NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing
Industry; 40 CFR part 63 subparts A and KK; was approved on 04/19/2013;
OMB Number 2060-0335; expires on 04/30/2016; Approved without change.

Withdrawn and Continue

EPA ICR Number 1487.11; Consolidated Superfund Information Collection
Request (Renewal); Withdrawn from OMB on 04/10/2013 EPA ICR Number
2434.15; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery (New); Withdrawn from OMB on 04/30/2013

John Moses,
Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-10883 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P