1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES May 29, 2002 MEMORANDUM FROM: Kathryn Boyle, CoChair IIFG and Kerry Leifer, CoChair IIFG TO: Robert Forrest, Chief Minor Use, Inerts, and Emergency Response Branch SUBJECT: IIFG Decision Memo Please find attached the Inert Ingredient Focus Group recommendations for the inert ingredients associated with cellulose and paper. 2 INERT INGREDIENT FOCUS GROUP DECISION DOCUMENT for Cellulose and Paper Petition No.: no Tolerance Reassessments?: yes Chemical Substance CAS Reg. No. 40 CFR 180.1001 citation alpha  cellulose (c)( e)

croscarmellose sodium (a cross linked form of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) 74811 65 7 (c)

sodium carboxymethyl cellulose 9004 32 4 (c)

Paper fiber, deinked or recycled, conforming to 21 CFR 109.30( a)( 9) and 21 CFR 176.260 (d)

Paper fiber, produced by the kraft (sulfate) or sulfite pulping processes. (d)

Other chemicals considered in this assessment are: methyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose, and cellulose acetate. The tolerance exemptions for these chemicals have been previously reassessed and are included in this assessment only for their structural similarities to cellulose and to consider for List 4A classification.

HPV Chemical? No Use Pattern (pesticidal): Cellulose can be used as a solid diluent, carrier, and suspending agent. Cellulose derivatives are used as suspending agents, surfactants, thickeners, and dispersing agents in food and cosmetics. Cellulose acetate is used as a pesticide rate release regulating agent. Paper is used as a carrier. 3 Use Pattern (non pesticidal): Cellulose and cellulose derivatives are used as a both direct and indirect food additives. As direct food additives they are used in baked goods and baking mixes, fats and oils, cheese, meat and poultry products, sweet sauces, toppings, syrups, gelatins, puddings and fillings, gravies, dairy product analogs, candy and chewing gum. As indirect food additives they are used as substances migrating to food from food packaging. The cellulose derivatives are used in cosmetics such as hair products, eye and facial makeup and skin care preparations. They can also be used in surface coatings, as polymerization additives, in adhesives, and in detergents and cleaners. Croscarmellose sodium is used as a disintegrating agent in pharmaceuticals (tablets). Cellulose fibers are used as a component of insulation.

1. Introduction:

Cellulose, or alpha cellulose, is a naturally occurring polymeric material. It can also be referred to as a macromolecule or polysaccharide. Chemically, cellulose is a long chain of glucose molecules that are linked with beta (1 4) glycosidic bonds. The molecular weight of isolated cellulose as reported by FDA is approximately 50, 000 daltons. Cellulose is part of the plant cell wall of wood, cotton, and various plant crops consumed for nutrition. It is the most abundant carbohydrate in nature. Dietary cellulose (i. e., fiber) from edible plants is consumed by humans on a daily basis. Humans do not possess the enzyme necessary to break the beta (1 4) glycosidic bond; thus, cellulose passes unchanged through the intestinal tract. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans published by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) recommend eating foods with adequate fiber. The National Cancer Institute recommends that an individual consume 20 to 30 grams of fiber each day with an upper limit of 35 grams per day.

The derivatives are not naturally occurring materials, but are manufactured from cellulose. These are polymeric substances with high molecular weights: the information available indicates ranges of 40,000 to 480,000 daltons depending on the degree of polymerization Paper is manufactured by applying a watery suspension of cellulose fibers, known as pulp, to a screen thus allowing the water to drain and leaving the fibrous particles behind in a sheet. Pulp is produced by digesting a cellulose containing material into its fibrous constituents via chemical and/ or mechanical means. In the case of wood, the most common pulping material, chemical pulping actions release cellulose fibers by selectively destroying the chemical bonds in the glue like substance (lignin) that binds the fibers together. The two major chemical pulping processes used in the US are kraft/ soda pulping and sulfite pulping. Kraft pulping produced 80 percent of all US pulp tonnage during 1993. After the pulping process, dependent on the type of paper desired, paper manufacturing includes various processes to separate and remove impurities, bleaching and coloring processes to achieve the desired color, adding various resins or texture materials depending on the desired end result, and drying by pressing and heating to bond the fibers.

The following information was used in performing this assessment: The available information consisted of information retrieved from various websites, such as, 4 °EPA( www. epa. gov) ° TOXNET ( www. toxnet. nlm. nih. gov.) ° World Health Organization (WHO) (jecfa. ilsi. org/ section1. htm) and (www. inchem. org/ document/ jecfa/ jecmono/ v26je08.htm)

and those websites containing descriptions of cellulose and paper.

Additionally, the following documents were used: ° GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) Food Ingredients  Cellulose and Derivatives were evaluated in a 1972 assessment by FDA. ° Certain Cellulose Derivatives as Food Ingredients were evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a 1974 assessment. ° Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Hydroxypropylcellulose, Hydroxypropylcellulose, Methylcellulose, Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, and Cellulose Gum: Cosmetic Ingredient Review Journal of the American College of Toxicology Vol. 5 No. 3 (1986)

2. Chemical Specific Uses of Cellulose and Cellulose Derivatives:

Microcrystalline cellulose is obtained by treating alpha cellulose with mineral acids. It is used to convert liquid foods to granular forms or smooth spreading gels, and as an anticaking or binding agent.

Methyl cellulose is used as a thickener, stabilizer, emulsifier, bodying or bulking agent, and binder in foods. It was first used in foods in the US in 1960.

Carboxymethyl cellulose and it sodium salt (sodium carboxymethyl cellulose or cellulose, carboxymethyl ether, sodium salt are used as thickening agents and stabilizers in foods. Little distinction is made between the two chemicals. Both were first used in foods in the US in 1945.

Hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose is used as a thickening agent, stabilizer, and emulsifier.

Ethyl cellulose is used as a coating for vitamin preparations, as a binder and filler, and as a component of paper and paperboard food packaging materials. It is in hard candy and chewing gum.

3. FDA's Conclusions There is a large toxicity database for cellulose and its derivatives. It includes acute, subchronic, chronic/ carcinogenic, and reproductive studies. The metabolism and absorption has been well documented.

FDA's overall conclusion is as follows: 5 "Cellulose is a major constituent of many foods of plant origin. As such it is a significant portion of the diet, but is neither degraded nor absorbed. Cellulose derivatives considered in this report are virtually unabsorbed and little or no degradation of absorbable products occurs in the human digestive tract. In man, consumption of large amounts appears to have no effect other than providing dietary bulk, reducing the nutritive value of such foodstuffs and possibly exerting a laxative effect."

FDA's chemical specific hazard conclusions are as follows:

Cellulose and Microcrystalline Cellulose "There is no evidence in the available information on pure and regenerated cellulose, including microcrystalline cellulose, that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when they are used at levels that are now current, or that might reasonably be expected in future."

Methyl Cellulose "In humans, virtually 100 percent of orally ingested methyl cellulose can be recovered in the feces within four days, indicating that absorption does not occur. However, in pregnant mice, very high doses of methyl cellulose, while not teratogenic, cause a significant increase in maternal mortality and retardation of fetal maturation."

According to the summary of the study in the FDA Assessment pregnant rats, hamsters, and mice were administered doses of methyl cellulose in corn oil. In rats at doses up to 1320 mg/ kg/ day for 10 consecutive days, there was no clearly discernible effect on nidation or on maternal or fetal survival. In hamsters, doses of up to 1000 mg/ kg/ day for five days (gestation days 6 to 10) did not produce significant effects on nidation (fertilization) or on maternal or fetal survival.

Daily doses of up to 345 mg/ kg/ day from day 6 through day 15 of gestation in mice had no clearly discernible effect on nidation or on maternal or fetal survival. However, doses of 1600 mg/ kg/ day caused a significant increase in mortality in treated dams and a decrease in the pregnancy rate of survivors. There was a marked increase in the number of resorption sites. The live fetuses were smaller and exhibited significant retardation in maturation. The findings resembled those produced by high molecular weight polysaccharides such as the vegetable gums. The dose of 1600 mg/ kg/ day is higher than that tested in either the rat or hamster. It is possible that the effects could be due to nutritional deficiencies due to deliberately high doses of indigestible material.

Information in the FDA assessment indicated that the average daily intake for cellulose deliberately added to foods ranged from 48 to 360 mg/ kg/ day (1970s). Cellulose derivatives were at significantly lower levels and ranged from less than 1 to 36 mg/ kg/ day. It is unlikely that levels 6 of human consumption of methyl cellulose would reach levels comparable to those at which effects were seen.

Carboxymethyl Cellulose and Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose "Because carboxymethyl cellulose becomes the sodium salt in the presence of sodium ion, no distinction between the two substances as used in food need be made." There is no evidence to suggest that either chemical substance would be a hazard to the public when used at levels that are now current or that might reasonably be expected in the future."

Hydroxypropylmethyl Cellulose "There is no evidence in the available information on hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose that demonstrates, or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when it is used at levels that are now current and in the manner now practiced" (thickening agent, stabilizer and emulsifier). Given the nature of the chemical substance, the use pattern specified above as a food additive is very likely to also be the use pattern for pesticide products."

Hydroxyethyl Cellulose In the FDA assessment, there is less toxicity information available for hydroxyethyl cellulose than for other cellulose derivatives. However, given the chemical similarities of the derivatives, there is no reason to believe that this cellulose derivative should interact with the human body with any significant difference. All cellulose derivatives examined are of low toxicity; therefore, hydroxyethyl cellulose should also be of low toxicity.

Cellulose Acetate In the FDA Assessment, cellulose acetate was only examined for use as a food packaging material. It was concluded that: "There is no evidence in the available information ..... that demonstrates or suggests reasonable grounds to suspect, a hazard to the public when ..... used in food packaging materials as now practiced or as they might be expected to be used for such purposes in future."

TOXNET indicated that cellulose acetate is an amorphous white solid material in granular, flake, or powder form from which fibers can be formed by extrusion. It is a thermoplastic material and can be heat set or extruded. The OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Chemical Sampling Information Form contains no exposure limits or health factor concerns.

The establishment of the tolerance exemption for cellulose acetate in 1995 was based on its conformance with the polymer exemption guidance criteria. 7 4. World Health Organization (WHO)

Cellulose derivatives have been examined at eight meetings of the FAO/ WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Various toxicological studies (acute, chronic/ carcinogenic, reproduction, mutagenicity, metabolism and absorption, and observations in man were discussed for: ethyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, methylethyl cellulose, and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose. The human observations concerned the laxative effects of modified celluloses.

The conclusion was reached that cellulose derivatives have "a low toxicity." The estimate of acceptable daily intake is "not specified", which is defined as:

A term applicable to a food substance of very low toxicity which, on the basis of the available data (chemical, biochemical, toxicological, and other), the total dietary intake of the substance arising from its use at the levels necessary to achieve the desired effect and from its acceptable background in food does not, in the opinion of JECFA, represent a hazard to health. For that reason, and for reasons stated in individual evaluations, the establishment of an acceptable daily intake expressed in numerical form is not deemed necessary. An additive meeting this criterion must be used within the bounds of good manufacturing practice, i. e., it should be technologically efficacious and should be used at the lowest level necessary to achieve this effect, it should not conceal inferior food quality or adulteration, and it should not create a nutritional imbalance The only concern specified was that the ability to produce laxation should be taken into account when using these substances as food additives.

5. SAR Assessment Several of the cellulose derivatives were evaluated by the SAR (structure activity relationship) process. Both sodium carboxymethyl cellulose and ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose were rated as low concern for both human health and ecotoxicity concerns. Hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were only rated for human health, for which they were rated as low concern.

6. Paper Assessment The tolerance exemption for paper was established on April 14, 1988 (53 FR 12418) (FRL 3365 8). The rationale for establishing the tolerance exemption included its similarities to other cellulosic materials already cleared under 40 CFR 180.1001( c), and the fact that pulp is cleared under 21 CFR 186.1673 as an indirect food substance affirmed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS). 8 The Agency no longer uses comparisons to similar materials as the basis for action unless the materials have already undergone the tolerance reassessment process and have been determined to be reassessed. In this case, the similar materials alpha cellulose, oat hulls, shells (almond, cocoa, coconut, and walnut), and wood flour have already been reassessed, or in the case of alpha cellulose is being reassessed in this document. As explained previously paper is mostly cellulose fibers. Paper is derived from pulp. Pulp is derived mostly from wood.

The tolerance exemption for de inked and/ or recycled paper was established on August 1, 1989 (54 FR 31674) (FRL 3623 5). Paper that is to be recycled must first be de inked, that is, the ink as well as the various coatings and additives are separated from the fibers (such as cellulose) that form the structure of paper. It is the cellulose fibers that are recycled. These fibers are then combined with fibers that have not been previously made into paper.

The rationale for establishing the de inked and/ or recycled tolerance exemption included the above tolerance exemption for paper, and the fact that pulp from reclaimed paper is cleared under 21 CFR 176.260 as a component of articles used in producing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food subject to certain provisions.

It is not expected that residues of paper when used as a carrier (the use that would be expected due to the nature of paper) would be present in raw agricultural commodities. When applied to crops, paper would not be expected to be absorbed by the plant.

7. Croscarmellose Sodium Croscarmellose sodium is a cross linked carboxymethylcellulose sodium that is sometimes referred to as sodium cellulose glycolate. The cross linking reduces its water solubility and permits the material to swell and take up many times its weight in water. These properties make croscarmellose sodium similar to those of sodium starch glycolate, a cross linked potato starch derivative. Sodium starch glycolate is produced by crossing linking and carboxymethylation of potato starch. Both chemicals are used as disintegrants (disintegrating agents) in the pharmaceutical industry.

The only concern for either of these chemicals would be for inhalation of respirable particles (less than 10 microns). Since either of these materials can absorb many times their own weight in water and swell (in volume), inhalation of respirable particles may lead to lung effects. However, these concerns can be addressed by the acute end product toxicity testing performed at the time of product registration.

8. Hazard Characterization:

Other than the inhalation concerns for croscarmellose sodium, there is no available information on any of the chemicals considered in this document indicative of a hazard or significant adverse effects  to the general public or any population subgroup. There have been 9 many reviews of these materials by organizations such as FDA and WHO. The available information indicate that these chemical substances pass through the intestinal tract unabsorbed. They are of low toxicity.

9. Type of risk assessment: qualitative 10. Sensitivity of Infants and Children:

These chemicals have low toxic potential. In addition, humans of all ages are highly exposed to them from natural and anthropogenic sources. At this time, there is no concern for potential sensitivity to infants and children. A safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

11. Fate Assessment:

Cellulose derivatives would undergo biological degradation in a matter of days to weeks, and ultimate degradation to carbon dioxide and water in a matter of weeks to months. In water, partitioning to the sediment is likely; therefore, celluloses would be expected to be found in the sorbed state in water. Transport to surface in the sorbed state would dominate the nondegradation pathways of dissipation. Groundwater contamination is not likely to be significant, given the partitioning to the sediment.

12. Ecotoxicity Assessment Cellulose derivatives would be practically non toxic to aquatic organisms. Terrestrial animal toxicity based on the available data would indicate cellulose derivatives are practically nontoxic on an acute basis.

13. Cumulative Exposure:

Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." Cellulose and its derivatives are structurally related; however, all are low toxicity chemicals. Therefore, the resultant risks separately and/ or combined should also be low. EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether these chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.

14. IIFG Recommendations:

By consensus there were no objections to the following: 10 The following tolerance exemptions are reassessed: In 40 CFR 180.1001 (c) alpha cellulose, croscarmellose sodium, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (d) Paper fiber, deinked or recycled, conforming to 21 CFR 109.30( a)( 9) and 21 CFR 176.260, and Paper fiber, produced by the kraft (sulfate) or sulfite pulping processes. In 40 CFR 180.1001 (e) alpha cellulose.

Given the non toxic nature of cellulose and its derivatives, the following List reclassifications are made or confirmed:

cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 34 6, 65996 61 4): List 4A cellulose acetate (CAS Reg. No. 9004 35 7: List 4A carboxymethyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9000 11 7): List 4A hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 65 3): List 4A methyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 67 5): List 4A sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 32 4, 51395 75 6): List 4A Given the derivation of paper from cellulose, the history and nature of paper, and the role that it plays in our daily lives, the List 4A reclassifications are reconfirmed for paper.

Croscarmellose sodium is classified as List 4B, due to the inhalation concerns.

Tolerance exemptions (with List 4A classification) may be established for:

ethyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 57 3) hydroxyethyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 62 0) cellulose, regenerated (CAS Reg. No. 68442 85 3) hydroxypropyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 64 2). ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (CAS Reg. No. 9004 58 4)

Attachment:

EFED review (Abel; April 10, 2002)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22215-22216]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0011; OMB No. 1660-NEW]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS)
Memorandum of Agreement Applications

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 a new information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Memorandum of
Agreement Applications.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 22, 2015.

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-2015-0011. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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: Hans N. Yu, Project Manager, FEMA,
National Continuity Programs, Protection & National Preparedness, (202)
646-3910 for additional information. You may contact the Records
Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Presidential Executive Order 13407
establishes the policy for an effective, reliable, integrated,
flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American
people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or
other hazards to public safety and wellbeing. The Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) response to the Executive Order. The Stafford Act
(U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter II) requires that FEMA make
IPAWS available to Federal, State, and local agencies for the purpose
of providing warning to governmental authorities and the civilian
population in areas endangered by disasters. The information collected
is used by FEMA to create a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that
regulates the management, operations, and security of the information
technology system connection between a Federal, State, territorial,
tribal or local alerting authority and IPAWS-OPEN (Open Platform for
Emergency Notifications).

Collection of Information

    Title: Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS)
Memorandum of Agreement Applications.

    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 007-0-25, IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Application; FEMA Form 007-0-26, Memorandum of Agreement Application
for (Tribal Governments).
    Abstract: A Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local alerting
authority that applies for authorization to use IPAWS is designated as
a Collaborative Operating Group or ``COG'' by the IPAWS Program
Management Office (PMO). Access to IPAWS is free; however, to send a
message using IPAWS, an organization must procure its own IPAWS
compatible software. To become a COG, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
governing system security must be executed between the sponsoring
organization and FEMA.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 160.
    Number of Responses: 160.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 160 hours.

                                                                           Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                    Average burden   Total annual                    Total annual
              Type of respondent                      Form name/form number          Number of     responses per   Total number    per response     burden  (in   Average hourly    respondent
                                                                                respondents     respondent     of responses     (in hours)        hours)         wage rate         cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement                150               1             150               1             150          $38.30       $5,745.00
                                                 Application/.
                                                FEMA Form 007-0-25..............
State, Local or Tribal Government.............  IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement                 10               1              10               1              10           38.30          383.00
                                                 Application for Tribal
                                                 Governments/.
                                                FEMA Form 007-0-26..............
                                                                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ................................             160  ..............             160  ..............             160  ..............        6,128.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $6,128.00. There are no annual costs to respondents'
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$74,343.00.

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.

    Dated: April 13, 2015.
Janice Waller,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mission
Support.
[FR Doc. 2015-09252 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-AB-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11692-11694]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3085; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Little Rock, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Little Rock
Air Force Base (AFB), Little Rock, AR. Airspace reconfiguration is
necessary due to closure of the air traffic control tower and
associated approaches at Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR. Dennis
F. Cantrell Field would be removed from the airspace designation and
legal description as it is no longer needed to describe the boundaries
of Little Rock AFB. The FAA is proposing this action for continued
safety within the National Airspace System (NAS). Additionally, the
geographic coordinates for Little Rock AFB and Saline County Airport,
Benton, AR, would be adjusted.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
3085; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records

Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order
7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Little Rock AFB, Little Rock,
AR.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3085/
Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-2.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending the Class E airspace area at
Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), AR. The air traffic control tower at
Dennis F. Cantrell Field, Conway, AR, has closed, and approaches
cancelled. This action would remove Dennis F. Cantrell Field, from the
airspace designation and description for Little Rock AFB, as they are
no longer needed to define its boundaries. Additionally, geographic
coordinates for Little Rock AFB, would be changed from (lat.
34[deg]54'59'' N., long. 92[deg]08'47'' W.) to (lat. 34[deg]55'03'' N.,
long. 92[deg]08'42'' W.) and Saline County Airport, Benton, AR,
coordinates would be changed from (lat. 34[deg]33'23'' N., long.
92[deg]36'25'' W.) to (lat. 34[deg]35'25'' N., long. 92[deg]28'46''
W.). These minor adjustments would reflect the current information in
the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and

effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Little Rock, AR [Amended]

Little Rock AFB, AR
    (Lat. 34[deg]55'03'' N., long. 92[deg]08'42'' W.)
Little Rock, Adams Field, AR
    (Lat. 34[deg]43'46'' N., long. 92[deg]13'29'' W.)
Benton, Saline County Airport, AR
    (Lat. 34[deg]35'25'' N., long. 92[deg]28'46'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
bounded within a 20-mile radius of Little Rock AFB, and within a 22-
mile radius of Adams Field Airport and within a 6.3-mile radius of
Saline County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 17, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-04742 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 67870]
[DOCID:fr21de09-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-80-000]

Three Buttes Windpower, LLC; Notice of Filing

December 14, 2009.
    Take notice that, on December 9, 2009, Three Buttes Windpower, LLC
filed to supplement its filing in the above captioned docket with
information required under the Commission's regulations. Such filing
served to reset the filing date in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 30, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30236 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 17207]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05859]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-569-000.
    Applicants: Midship Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: 2022 Annual Operations Transaction Report of Midship
Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230313-5247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-574-000.
    Applicants: MountainWest Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming Contracts--
Wapiti Rocky Mountain, LLC to be effective 4/15/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20230315-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-575-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: SS-2 and Firm and
Interruptible Transportation Fuel Percentages Tracker Filing to be
effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/16/23.
    Accession Number: 20230316-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/23.

    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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 16, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05859 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6558]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02267]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74184; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Continued Listing Requirements in
Relation to the Late Filing of a Company's Annual Report With the
Securities and Exchange Commission as Set Forth in Section 802.01E of
the Exchange's Listed Company Manual

January 30, 2015.
    On December 4, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its continued listing requirements in
relation to the late filing of a company's annual report with the
Commission as set forth in Section 802.01E of the Exchange's Listed
Company Manual (``Late Filer Rule''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 17, 2014.\3\
The Commission received no comment letters regarding 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. 73821 (December 11,
2014), 79 FR 75217 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether these proposed rule changes should be disapproved.
The 45th day for this filing is January 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates March 17, 2015, as
the date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02267 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Date:	June 7, 2013

To:	Rachel Schmeltz, U.S. EPA

From:	Jeff Coburn, RTI International

Subject:	Uncertainty of Monthly Landfill Gas Methane Concentration
Measurements

Purpose

This memorandum documents the uncertainty of the methane recovery when
using a monthly monitoring frequency with or without a minimum
intervening period between “monthly” measurement events.

Background

On October 30, 2009, the EPA promulgated mandatory GHG reporting
requirements for a variety of sources including municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills as 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart HH.  For MSW landfills that
have landfill gas collection, Subpart HH requires continuous monitoring
of landfill gas flow and either continuous monitoring (if continuous
monitoring equipment is present) or weekly measurement of landfill gas
methane concentration.  Industry representatives have commented that the
weekly measurement requirement is burdensome, particularly for closed
landfills, and that monthly monitoring of methane concentration would
provide an adequately accurate estimate of the methane recovery.  To
assist the EPA in their review of this issue, industry representatives
provided their weekly flow and methane concentration measurements for
the 2011 reporting year (RY2011).  The data were provided on a
landfill-specific basis with an indication of the landfill as either
active or closed.

The EPA evaluated the weekly measurement data, as documented in the
memorandum “Review of Weekly Landfill Gas Volumetric Flow and Methane
Concentrations” from Jeff Coburn, RTI International, to Rachel
Schmeltz, U.S. EPA, dated October 18, 2012 (see Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0014).  On April 2, 2013, the EPA proposed to allow
monthly monitoring (rather than weekly monitoring) for methane
concentrations at landfills with gas collection systems based on the
results of the October 2012 data analyses.  Specifically, the proposed
amendments required that the methane concentration be determined
“…at least once each calendar month; if only one measurement is made
each calendar month, there must be at least fourteen days between
measurements.”  Industry representatives commented on the proposed
rule stating that the 14 day interval was not necessary because: (1) the
data showed little variability in methane concentrations; (2) it
“significantly and unnecessarily complicates scheduling;” and (3)
“it may not be possible to take a monthly reading at least fourteen
days apart due to the operating schedule of the device.”

This memorandum evaluates the data originally provided by the industry
representatives in light of these comments to determine if an
intervening period between monthly samples is justified because it
serves the intended purpose of limiting the uncertainty of the methane
recovery.

Assertion 1:  The data show little variability in methane concentrations

The previous analysis (as documented in the October 18, 2012,
memorandum) used “Week 1” concentrations for each month and the
total monthly flow to develop one estimate of methane recovery.  A
second estimate of methane recovery was developed using all “Week 2”
concentration measurement.  A third and fourth estimate of methane
recovery was also developed using all “Week 3” and “Week 4”
concentration measurements, respectively.  In all of these cases, the
recovery estimates were made using concentration measurement data that
were approximately 28 days apart and had to be at least 22 days apart.
If the rule did not include an intervening interval between monthly
samples, it is possible that the landfill owner or operator could
determine the methane concentration just before midnight on January 31,
wait a few minutes, and determine the methane concentration just after
midnight on February 1.  This would qualify as monthly samples as the
samples are taken in different calendar months, even though they are
minutes apart.

In order to evaluate the impact of removing the intervening interval as
suggested be commenters, the original data was again evaluated using a
single methane concentration determination at the end of Month 1 for the
cumulative flow for both Months 1 and 2, the methane concentration
determination at the end of Month 3 for the cumulative flow for both
Months 3 and 4, respectively.  We note that subpart HH currently
requires weekly samples to be at least 3 days apart, therefore using
Week 4 for Month 1 and Week 1 for Month 2 would still indicate a minimum
intervening period, so this approach was not used to evaluate the impact
of removing the intervening period altogether.

The annual methane recovery was determined for each landfill based on
“no intervening period” and compared to the annual methane recovery
determined based on the weekly concentration measurements and flow
rates.  Figure 1 shows the distribution of the percent error in the
monthly measurements as determined using the “no intervening period”
values.  Figure 2 shows the same distributional analysis determined
previously using all “Week 1” methane concentration measurements.
It is quite clear from a comparison of these figures that, while there
is no significant bias (graphs still distributed around 0 error), there
is a significantly broader range of errors.  In the true monthly
sampling paradigm (4 week intervals), there is only one landfill at the
tails (outside ±6.25 percent error).  For the “no intervening
period” analysis, there are approximately 10 landfills at each tail.
Under the true monthly sampling paradigm, the extreme values were -6.3
percent and +6.5 percent; under the “no intervening period”
analysis, the extreme values were -21 percent and +13.2 percent.  These
results strongly indicate that more accurate methane recovery values
will be achieved if there is an intervening period between monthly
samples.

In October 18, 2012, RTI also performed a Monte Carlo analysis to
project the impacts of the variability in methane concentration
measurements on the accuracy of the calculated methane recovery value
when going from weekly sampling (n= 52 ) to monthly sampling (n=12).  In
order to project the uncertainty of monthly sampling with no intervening
period, the Monte Carlo analysis was repeated with n=6 (assuming the no
intervening period is taken to its extreme).  The 95th percentile
confidence interval for the annual average methane concentration based
on 52, 12, and 6 measurements is ±3.8%, ±7.8%, and ±11%,
respectively.

Figure 1.  Distributional analysis of the percent difference in the
annual methane recovery using monthly methane concentration measurements
with no intervening period.

Figure 2.  Distributional analysis of the percent difference in the
annual methane recovery using monthly concentration measurements one
month apart.

Table 1 summarizes the sum of squares approach for determining the
overall uncertainty associated with the methane recovery values for a
single landfill. As seen in Table 1, the overall uncertainty of the
methane recovery values for a single reporter is expected to increase
from ±8% to ±10.5% when going from a weekly to a true monthly
monitoring frequency.  If there is no intervening period between monthly
samples, the uncertainty increases to ±13%.  Thus, the inclusion of an
intervening interval in the monthly sampling requirement helps to limit
the increase in the uncertainty associated with the methane recovery
values when switching from weekly to monthly monitoring.

Table 1.  Estimate of the Overall Uncertainty for Methane Recovery for a
Single Landfill.

Parameter	Uncertainty 	Square of Uncertainty

	N=52	N=12	N=6	N=52	N=12	N=6

Accuracy of flow meter	±5%	±5%	±5%	25	25	25

Accuracy of methane concentration	±5%	±5%	±5%	25	25	25

Variability of methane concentration	±3.8%	±7.8%	±11%	14.44	60.84	121

Sum of Squares

64.44	110.84	171

Overall Uncertainty (square root of Sum of Squares)	±8.0%	±10.5%
±13.0%

Assertion 2:  The intervening period “significantly and unnecessarily
complicates scheduling”

No data were presented by industry commenters as to how the intervening
period “significantly” complicates scheduling.  If the sampling is
planned for approximately the 15th of every month, the subsequent
month’s sampling can be conducted any time during the following month.
 Thus, if the landfill owner schedules sampling to be conducted near the
15th of each month, the landfill owner of operator has significant
latitude to reschedule a certain month’s sampling event if an issue
arises with the recovery system and the system cannot be sampled on the
15th.  Therefore, it is not clear how this requirement
“significantly” complicates scheduling.  Furthermore, the weekly
sampling requirement currently in subpart HH requires a 3 day interval
between weekly sampling.  As such, monthly sampling with a 14 day
intervening period is much less burdensome or complicated than the
existing weekly measurement requirement with a 3 day intervening period.
 As for “unnecessarily” complicating the rule, the “no intervening
analysis” presented under Assertion 1 provides strong evidence that
the intervening interval is necessary to limit measurement error and
uncertainty associated with monthly sampling.

Assertion 3:  The intervening period may make it impossible to collect
samples for some months at some landfills.

The majority of landfills operate their recovery system continuously.
From the weekly monitoring data submitted from the industry, only 22 of
395 landfills had landfill gas flow for less than 52 weeks per year and
only 12 of 395 landfills had landfill gas flow for less than 50 weeks
per year. If a landfill’s gas collection system is down for only one
or two weeks a year, the 14-day intervening period will not hinder the
collection of monthly samples.  On the other extreme, if a landfill has
no recovered gas flow for an entire month, then that landfill would have
to use missing data procedures regardless of whether or not there is an
intervening period between monthly samples (in fact, no concentration
measurement is need since the cumulative flow for the month is zero).
If the landfill owner or operator generally plans to sample early each
month or near the 15th of the month, the next month’s sample can be
taken anytime during the month.  The only time the lack of an
intervening period would allow a landfill owner or operator to collect a
monthly gas sample is when there is only gas flow during the last week
of a month and during the first week of the next month.  The weekly flow
periods for the 12 landfills that have landfill gas flow for less than
50 weeks per year were evaluated to determine how often the 14 day
intervening period would prevent a landfill owner or operator from
collecting a monthly sample that they could have otherwise collected if
there were no intervening period between monthly samples. We could not
identify one month for any landfill within the entire data set where
missing data provisions would have to be used under the monthly sampling
with a 14-day intervening period but not under the monthly sampling with
no intervening period.  Based on the industry’s weekly sampling data
and this analysis, we conclude that the 14-day interval between monthly
sampling events will not increase the prevalence at which facilities
must rely on missing data procedures.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  5

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register: December 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75284]
[DOCID:fr14de06-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54899; File No. SR-FICC-2006-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Establishing New
Reporting Processes To Support the Bilateral Comparison of Pool Details
Associated With Specified Pool Trade Activity

December 8, 2006.
    On June 15, 2006, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and on June 30, 2006, amended the
proposed rule change. Notice of the proposed rule change was published
in the Federal Register on October 24, 2006.\2\ No comment letters were
received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54609 (Oct. 16, 2006),
71 FR 62324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description

    The proposed rule change will add new rules to FICC's Mortgage
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Rulebook to establish new
reporting processes to support the bilateral comparison of pool details
associated with specified pool trade (``SPT'') activity. Specifically,
FICC will enable MBSD members to submit the pool number and original
face value for all SPT activity through its real time trade matching
(``RTTM'') service. This rule filing will not change how MBSD currently
manages risk for these trades at the TBA level in that MBSD's rules
will continue to stipulate that SPT's may be treated as TBA's in
instances of member insolvency.
    In conjunction with establishing this new service, FICC will make
two new reports available to members: The RTTM Purchase and Sale Report
and the RTTM Open Commitment Report.\3\ These reports will reflect the
submission of pool number and original face value \4\ as matching
criteria submitted by members. Finally, FICC will include new fees for
the submission of SPTs to the Schedule of Charges in the MBSD Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These reports will not replace MBSD's Purchase and Sale
Report or Open Commitment Report, which will continue to reflect
specified pool trades as TBA trades.
    \4\ In addition to pool number and original face value, existing
matching fields (such as TBA CUSIP and price) will continue to be
populated by members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. The Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with this requirement
because it will provide a more efficient process for MBSD members to
report and compare SPT transaction information and thereby should
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2006-11) be, and hereby
is, approved.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-21278 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3427]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00989]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 103; SEC File No. 270-410, OMB Control No. 3235-0466

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 103
of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.103), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 103 permits passive market-making in Nasdaq securities during
a distribution. A distribution participant that seeks use of this
exception would be required to disclose to third parties its intention
to engage in passive market making.
    There are approximately 255 respondents per year that require an
aggregate total of 255 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent
makes an estimated 1 response annually. Each response takes
approximately 1 hour to complete. Thus, the total hourly burden per
year is 255 hours. The total estimated internal labor cost of
compliance for the respondents is approximately $16,065.00, resulting
in an estimated internal labor cost of compliance per response of
approximately $63.00 (i.e., $16,065.00/255 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549
or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be
submitted within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: January 14, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00989 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		7/31/2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	1/23/15 Sustainable Energy Fund Winter Conference  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      EPA presented at the Sustainable Energy Fund's Winter Conference in Bethlehem, PA on January 23, 2015 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.               ATTENDEES

Mike Gordon, EPA Region 3 Emily Linn, EPA Region 3


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6826-6827]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-E-0277]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; BEYAZ

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined

the regulatory review period for BEYAZ and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6284, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product BEYAZ
(drospirenone, ethinyl estradiol, and levomefolate calcium). BEYAZ is
indicated for use in women to: Prevent pregnancy; treat symptoms of
premenstrual dysphoric disorder for women who choose to use an oral
contraceptive for contraception; treat moderate acne for women at least
14 years old only if the patient desires an oral contraceptive for
birth control; and raise folate levels in women who choose to use an
oral contraceptive for contraception. Subsequent to this approval, the
Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration
application for BEYAZ (U.S. Patent No. 6,441,168) from Eprova AG, and
the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in
determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated March 28, 2012, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period and that the approval of BEYAZ represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
BEYAZ is 1,271 days. Of this time, 874 days occurred during the testing
phase of the regulatory review period, while 397 days occurred during
the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: April 4, 2007. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that
the date the investigational new drug application became effective was
on April 4, 2007.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: August 24,
2009. The applicant claims August 21, 2009, as the date the new drug
application (NDA) for BEYAZ (NDA 22-532) was initially submitted.
However, FDA records indicate that NDA 22-532 was submitted on August
24, 2009.
    3. The date the application was approved: September 24, 2010. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-532 was approved on
September 24, 2010.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 834 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by April 1, 2013. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by July 30, 2013. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Comments and petitions that have not been
made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

    Dated: January 24, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-02086 Filed 1-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 50836]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0690; FRL-10000-03-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Automobile and Light-
duty Truck Surface Coating (EPA ICR Number 2045.08, OMB Control Number
2060-0550), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
November 30, 2019. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register (84 FR 19777), on May 6, 2019 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 28,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0690, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
either www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Automobile and Light-duty Truck Surface Coating
(40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) apply to new, reconstructed, or existing
facilities that apply topcoat to new automobile or new light-duty truck
bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks, and
that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a
major source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). New
facilities include those that commenced either construction, or
reconstruction after the date of proposal.
    Owners and operators of major sources of HAP that apply topcoat to
new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new
automobiles or new light-duty trucks are required to comply with
reporting and record keeping requirements for the General Provisions
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as for the applicable standards in
40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII. This includes submitting notifications,
performance test reports, and periodic reports, as well as maintaining
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; continuous
parameter monitoring data; or any period during which the monitoring
system is inoperative. These reports are used by the EPA to determine
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that perform surface
coating on automobile or light-duty trucks.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart IIII).
    Estimated number of respondents: 43 (total).
    Frequency of response: Periodically and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 17,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,070,000 (per year), which includes $51,600
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The decrease in burden from the most
recently-approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources
subject to the rule. This estimate is based on Agency analyses
conducted during the development the Risk and Technology Review for
this subpart. This decrease in the number of sources leads to a
decrease in the number of responses, reporting and recordkeeping hours,
and a decrease in the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs as compared
with the costs in the previous ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-20952 Filed 9-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37471-37472]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0361]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District--Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia,
PA Safety Zone for fireworks displays on two separate periods. The
safety zone will first be enforced on June 21, 2023, and again, on July
1, 2023. This is to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waterways during each of two separate barge-based fireworks displays.
Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District
identifies the regulated area for this event in Philadelphia, PA.
During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, remain
in, or transit through the regulated area, and anyone in the vicinity
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation at 33 CFR 165.506, for Philadelphia, PA, will be
enforced for the location identified in entry 10 of table 1 to
paragraph (h)(1) from 8:35 p.m. through 9:20 p.m. on June 21, 2023, or
on a rain date of June 22, 2023, and from 9:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on
July 1, 2023, or on a rain date of July 2, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, you may call or email Petty Officer Dylan
Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management
Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry No. 10 for two
periods, for two separate barge-based fireworks displays. The first
enforcement period will be from 8:35 p.m. through 9:20 p.m. on June 21,
2023, or on a rain date of June 22, 2023. The second enforcement period
will be from 9:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 1, 2023, or on a rain date
of July 2, 2023. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on
the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during,
and immediately after

fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks
displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph
(h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the location of the
regulated area as all waters of the Delaware River adjacent to Penn's
Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks
barge position. The approximate position for the displays is latitude
39[deg]56'52'' N, longitude 075[deg]08'09'' W. During the enforcement
period, as reflected in Sec.  165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain
in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 2, 2023.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2023-12266 Filed 6-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 15, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-14397

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  KLM Cityhopper B.V. 					Date Filed:  January 18, 2005

Relief requested:   Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to conduct
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail by
displaying the airline designator codes of Northwest Airlines, Inc., and
Continental Airlines, Inc., on flights operated by KLM Cityhopper
between points in The Netherlands and points in third countries.

If renewal, date and citation of last action: February 19, 2003, in this
docket

Applicant representatives:  Charles F. Donley II & Elizabeth C. Collins
(202) 626-6840

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  February 15, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 15, 2005 – February
15, 2007

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  The authority is
provided for in the U.S.-Netherlands Air Transport Agreement

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

   X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)               Foreign
air carrier permit conditions (Order         )

    X     Code-share conditions  previously imposed on KLM
Cityhopper/Northwest Airlines/Continental Airlines in Docket
OST-2003-14397

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

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

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

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18907-18908]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08920]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85734; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rule 21.21
(Solicitation Auction Mechanism)

April 26, 2019.
    On February 21, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
adopt Rule 21.21, the Solicitation Auction Mechanism, a solicited order
mechanism for larger-sized orders. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 12, 2019.\3\ On
April 23, 2019, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85253 (March 6,
2019), 84 FR 8921.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 revises the proposal to (1) correct minor
technical errors in the description of the proposed rule change; (2)
remove an inadvertent description of an amendment to Exchange Rule
22.12, which the Exchange does not propose to amend in the proposal;
and (3) update the Exchange's description of the proposed rule
change's consistency with Section 11(a) of the Act. Amendment No. 1
is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2019-009/srcboeedgx2019009-5405908-184490.pdf.

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

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is April 26, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. The
Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission designates June 10, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08920 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P