[Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 42956-42957]
[DOCID:fr25au09-127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Red River Valley and Western Railroad Company

(Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0056)

    The Red River Valley and Western Railroad Company (RRV&W) seeks a
waiver from compliance of certain provisions of the Federal hours of
service law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 211; HSL). Specifically, RRV&W requests
relief from 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which states that a train employee
may not be required, allowed to remain, or go on duty after that
employee has initiated an on-duty period each day for 6 consecutive
days, unless that employee has had at least 48 hours off duty at the
employee's home terminal.
    RRV&W currently requires three Yard Foremen in its Breckenridge,
Minnesota, facility to initiate an on-duty period in 6 consecutive days
and return to duty without 48 hours off duty. The current RRV&W Yard
schedule includes a Monday through Friday morning shift beginning at 6
a.m.; a Monday through Friday shift beginning at 1:30 p.m.; and a
single weekend shift on each Saturday and Sunday at 7 a.m. The three
Yard Foreman rotate through these assignments via 6 consecutive day
starts in a manner that permits each Foreman working 6 days with one
rest day. RRV&W maintains that the current schedule addresses the issue
of fatigue through regular and highly predictable assignments, which
provide a substantially safer environment and better quality of life
for the group. RRV&W's entire petition may be viewed at http://
www.regulations.gov under the docket number listed above.
    The HSL, at 49 U.S.C. 21108(a), contemplates that any request for a
waiver from its requirements will be a joint waiver involving the
relevant railroad carrier(s) and nonprofit employee labor
organization(s) representing the class or craft of directly affected
covered service employees.

FRA understands that the covered service employees affected by RRV&W's
waiver request are not represented by any employee labor organization,
and accordingly, RRV&W's waiver request is made solely by the carrier.
FRA recognizes that the intent of 49 U.S.C. 21108(a) is to ensure that
covered service employees are provided meaningful input into any
potential waiver of the HSL that would affect their work schedules.
Accordingly, before considering the requested relief, FRA is requiring
that within 30 days of the publication date of this notice, RRV&W
submit evidence to the docket demonstrating that it has sought employee
input into the waiver request, what that employee input was, and that
it has provided each covered employee affected by the request with a
copy of the waiver petition, along with information on how to submit
comments to FRA on the request. FRA will consider this additional
information, along with all other relevant factors, in determining
whether granting the requested relief would be in the public interest
and consistent with railroad safety.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0056) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 18, 2009.
John Leeds,
Director, Office of Safety Analysis.
[FR Doc. E9-20429 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72641-72642]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0322]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 17 individuals from the
requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any
loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on June 9, 2016. The exemptions
expire on June 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On May 9, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 27 individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and requested comments from
the public (81 FR 28131). The public comment period ended on June 8,
2016, and three comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to 17 of 27 individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). On September 30, 2016, a notice announcing the denial of
the remaining 10 applicants was published in the Federal Register (81
FR 67424).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy
or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.

    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--

MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. Eva Gonzales
supports granting seizure exemptions to drivers who have maintained a
safe driving record. Liam McMillin expressed concern for the risk of
seizure while driving, and stated that ``motorists cannot predict when
they will have their next episode''. The Minnesota Department of Public
Safety expressed support for three of the applicants included in this
notice and concern about health issues and the driving record of an
applicant Shaen Smith. In response to this comment, Mr. Smith has been
seizure-free over 18 years and meets the physical qualification
standards to drive commercially. His five-year driving record includes
no violations or accidents and the Agency has reviewed his ten-year
driving history and concludes that he meets the requisite level of
safety to drive commercially within the terms and conditions of his
exemption.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA
considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 3069)
provides the current MEP recommendations, which is the criteria the
Agency uses to grant seizure exemptions.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure
and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA).
    These 17 applicants have been seizure-free over a range of six to
36 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially. A summary of each
applicant's seizure history was discussed in the May 9, 2016, Federal
Register notice (81 FR 28131).
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit
annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy/seizure standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited above:

Hamilton Barnard (CA)
Edward J. Carder, Jr. (OH)
Timothy M. Crampton (CT)
Henry Dennis Counts, Jr. (MD)
Michael D. Davis (ME)
Charlie E. Getchell (WI)
Dennis R. Giles (IN)
Robert W. Goddard (NH)
Larry G. Hediger (IL)
Martin Lancaster (ME)
Philip A. Logan (SC)
Eric J. McVetty (NH)
Donald John Richmond (SC)
Shaen Smith (MN)
Kevin Lee Sprinkle (NC)
Patrick Trimbo (MN)
Alan Washabaugh (PA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption is valid
for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
revoked if the following occurs: (1) The individual fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: October 12, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25387 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                         Risk and Technology Review -

Final Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities

                                 Prepared by:

                               EC/R Incorporated
                         501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250
                            Chapel Hill, NC  27514

                         EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-119
                           Work Assignment No. 4-01

                                 Prepared for:

                   Regina Chappell, Work Assignment Manager
                      Community and Tribal Programs Group
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                December, 2011
	Disclaimer

            Although the analysis described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency contract EP-D-06-119 to EC/R Incorporated, it has not been subject to the Agency's review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
                                   Contents

1.	Introduction	1
2.	Census Data	2
3.	Calculation Methods	4
3.1	Racial, Ethnic and Age Categories and the Total Population	4
3.2	Level of Education	5
3.3	Household Income	6
3.4	Poverty Level	7
3.5	Disability	7
3.6	Linguistic Isolation	8
4.	Results	9
5.	Uncertainty Discussion	11

Appendix A	A-1

   1. Introduction

	This document describes the approach used to evaluate the potential cancer and noncancer risks associated with inhalation and air-related exposures to hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in different social, demographic, and economic groups within the population living near secondary lead smelting production facilities in the United States.  This work was carried out in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for secondary lead smelting emissions subject to Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) requirements under 40 CFR 63 Subpart X.

	In the RTR analysis, the Human Exposure Model, Version 3 (HEM-3)[,] was used to estimate cancer and noncancer risks due to the inhalation of HAP for the populations residing within 50 kilometers of each secondary lead smelting facility in the country.  HEM-3 estimates cancer and noncancer risks at the level of census blocks using the AERMOD state-of-the-art air dispersion model developed under the direction of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) / EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC).  Each census block typically includes about 50 people.  Additional information on the risk analysis is available in the docket for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead Smelting Operations rulemaking where a report is provided, covering the inputs and specific assumptions, and addressing uncertainties.

	In the current analysis, cancer and noncancer risk estimates from the secondary lead smelting HEM-3 modeling effort were linked to detailed census data in order to evaluate the distribution of risks for different demographic groups (including racial, ethnic, age, economic, educational, disabled and linguistically isolated population categories).  The following population categories were included in this analysis:
   * Total population
   * White
   * Minority
   * African American (or Black)
   * Native Americans
   * Other races and multiracial
   * Hispanic or Latino
   * Children 17 years of age and under
   * Adults 18 to 64 years of age
   * Adults 65 years of age and over
   * Adults without a high school diploma
   * Households earning under the national median income
   * People living below the poverty line
   * Working aged people (16-64) with a disability
   * Linguistically isolated people
The HEM-3 results for a particular census block reflect the estimated level of cancer risk that would be experienced by an individual residing in the block for 70 years, and/or the estimated noncancer hazards experienced by an individual residing in the block due to chronic exposure. In this analysis, the latter includes the development of chronic hazard quotients for lead which are derived from estimated maximum 3-month rolling average exposures divided by the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.  As a result of secondary lead smelting emissions, the demographic composition of the population estimated to experience a risk greater than 1 in 1 million  -  and the population estimated to experience ambient lead concentrations exceeding the NAAQS  - is compared to the demographic composition of the overall nationwide population.

	The census data used in this analysis is described in Section 2.  The algorithms used to compute the distributions of risk and exposure are presented in Section 3.  The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4.
   2. Census Data

	Table 1 summarizes the census data used in this analysis, showing the source of each dataset and the level of geographic resolution.  All of the data are from the 2000 Decennial census.  Race, ethnicity and age data were obtained at the census block level.  Distributions regarding educational status, poverty status, household income, disabilities and linguistic isolation were obtained at the block group level.  A census block contains about 50 people on average; and a block group contains about 26 blocks on average, or about 1,350 people.  (For comparison, a census tract is larger than a block group, with each tract containing an average of 3 block groups, or about 4,300 people.)
     Table 1.  Summary of Census Data used to Analyze Risks for Different
                             Socioeconomic Groups
                          Type of population category
                                Source of data
                        Level of geographic resolution
Racial and ethnic categories
Landview(R)
Census block
Age groups
SF1 Table P12
Census block
Level of education - adults without a high school diploma
SF3 Table 37
Block group
Households earning below the national median income
SF3 Table 52
Block group
People living below the poverty line
SF3 Table P87
Block group
Working age people (16-64) with a
      disability
SF3 Table P42
Block group
Linguistically isolated people
SF3 Table P20
Block group

	Data on race and ethnicity were obtained primarily from the Landview(R) database compiled by the Census Department.  Landview(R) gives a breakdown for the population of each census block among different racial classifications, including: White, African American or Black, American Indian or Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, other race, and two or more races.  In the current analysis, the Asian, Native Hawaiian or other South Pacific Islander, and other race categories were combined into a single category.  The Landview(R) database also indicates the number of people in each tract that are of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.  Landview(R) covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, but does not cover the Virgin Islands.  Race and ethnicity data on the Virgin Islands were obtained from the Virgin Islands Summary File.

	Data on age distributions in the U.S. and Puerto Rico for each census block were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1 (SF1) Short Form, Table P12.  Data on poverty status, household income, education level, disabilities and linguistic isolation for each block group in the U.S. and Puerto Rico were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3 (SF3) Long Form.  For the U.S. this file was accessed on a DVD version prepared by GeoLytics.  SF3 data for Puerto Rico were obtained from the Census Department website,  and data for the Virgin Islands were retrieved from similar tables in the Virgin Islands Summary File.4

	The SF3 data set consists of over 800 separate tables, each providing information on a different subject.  For the current analysis, data were obtained from Tables P20, P37, P42, P52, and P87.  Table P37 analyzes the level of education attained by men and women over 25 years of age (e.g. some high school but no high school diploma, high school graduate, some college, etc.) in each block group.  Table P52 gives information on household income in 1999.  Table P87 estimates the number of people living below the poverty line in each block group.  Table P42 estimates the number of people in different age categories with disabilities in each block group.  And Table P20 estimates the fraction of households in each block group that are considered linguistically isolated.

   3. Calculation Methods

	The HEM-3 models the cancer and noncancer risk at a point near the geographic center of each census block.  For the current analysis, this risk estimate was assumed to apply to all individuals residing in the block.  We used block identification codes to link the HEM-3 modeling results for each block to the appropriate census statistics.  This allowed us to estimate the numbers of people falling into different population categories within each block.  We then analyzed the distribution of estimated inhalation risks within each population category, given the numbers of people within the category that are exposed to different risk levels.  Each distribution involved a tabulation of all the census blocks modeled for the secondary lead smelting source category.  We also computed the average risk for all individuals in each population category.

	Distributions of risk and average risks were computed for the raw HEM-3 model results for secondary lead smelting operations.  For comparison, the nationwide demographic composition (i.e., population percentage in each demographic group for the country as a whole, based on the 2000 Census) is also provided in the results table.

	Section 3.1 describes the calculation method used for categories where block-level data were available  -  racial, ethnic and age categories and the total population.  Sections 3.2 through 3.6 describe calculation methods for education status, household income, poverty status, disability and linguistic isolation, respectively.
  3.1     Racial, Ethnic and Age Categories and the Total Population

	Since race, ethnicity and age data are available at the census block level, the calculation of risk distributions for these categories involved a simple block-by-block accumulation of the people in each category.  We began by identifying a set of bins reflecting the level of risk.  The population of each block was then assigned to the appropriate risk bin based on the modeled risk level in the block.  The numbers of people in each risk bin were then added together for all of the blocks modeled for the secondary lead smelting source category:

	H(Rab,s) = ∑i[(][Ra<=Ri][<][Rb][)] [N(s,i)]	(1)

where:
	H(Rab,s) =	the population count for risk bin Rab, which is between Ra and Rb for population subgroup "s"
	Ri =	the modeled risk level in block "í" (estimated lifetime cases of cancer per million population or noncancer hazard index)
	∑i[(][Ra][<=Ri][<][Rb][)]	refers to the summation over all blocks i where Ri falls in bin Rab, between Ra and Rb
	N(s,i) =	the number of people within population subcategory s, in block i

The same approach was used for the total population.  The average risk for a given population category or for the total population was then calculated using the following equation:

		A(S) = ∑i [N(s,i) x Ri] ∕ ∑i [N(s,i)]	(2)

where:
	A(s) =	the average risk for population subgroup "s" (estimated lifetime cases of cancer per million population or noncancer hazard index)
	∑i	refers to the summation over all blocks "í" modeled for the emission source category
	N(s,i) and Ri 	were defined above

  3.2  Level of Education

      Table P37 of the SF3 dataset specifies the education status for men and women age 25 and older for each census block group, based on the last grade completed.  To obtain the total number of adults without a high school degree, we added together the numbers who had completed grades below a high school senior.  Thus, the number of people without a high school degree equals the sum of the number of males with no schooling, the number of females with no schooling, the numbers of males and females who have completed nursery school through 4th grade, up to the numbers of males and females who have completed some high school but not received a high school degree.

      The number of adults without a high school degree as a fraction of the total population was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group.  Thus, the number of adults without a high school degree in each block was computed as follows:

		N(nhs,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x N(nhs,bg) ∕ N(t,bg)	(3)

where:
	N(nhs,b/bg) =	number of adults without a high school diploma, in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(nhs,bg) =	number of adults without a high school diploma in block group "bg"
	N(t,bg) =	total number of people in block group "bg"

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for adults without a high school diploma.

  3.3  Household Income

	Table P52 of the SF3 dataset estimates the numbers of households in each block group with income for the year 1999 in various ranges, generally divided into $5,000 increments (e.g. $10,000 to $14,999, $15,000 to $19,999, etc.).  The median national income for 1999 was about $42,000 per year.  Therefore, in order to determine the number of households with incomes under the median income, we added the estimates for the ranges below that level.  We assumed that the household incomes in the $40,000 to $44,999 increment were evenly distributed over this range.  Therefore, 40% of the households in the $40,000 to $44,999 income range were assumed to be below the national median income of about $42,000.  The following equation was used to estimate the fraction of households below the national median income within each census block group:

		F(nm,bg) = [C<10 + C10-15 + .... + C35-40 + (0.4xC40-45)] ∕ CT	(4)

where:
	F(nm,bg) =	fraction of households in block group "bg" with incomes below the median national income
	C<10 =	number of households with incomes under $10,000
	C10-15 =	number of households with incomes from $10,000 to $14,999
	C35-40 =	number of households with incomes from $35,000 to $39,999
	C40-45 =	number of households with incomes from $40,000 to $44,999
	CT =	total number of households in block group "bg"

	The fraction of people living in households below the median income for each block within the block group was assumed to be the same as the fraction of households below the median income for the block group.

		N(nm,b/bg) =  F(sm,bg) x N(t,b/bg)	(5)

where:
	N(nm,b/bg) =	number of people in block "b" of block group "bg" living in households below the national median income
	F(nm,bg) =	fraction of households in block group "bg" below the national median income
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for people living in households below the national median income.  It must be noted that this approach neglects any potential relationship between household size and income level within a particular block group.  However, it is expected to provide a reasonable indication of the risk level of people living below the national median income, relative to the population as a whole.

  3.4  Poverty Level

	Table P87 of the SF3 dataset estimates the total number people in each block group living below the poverty level, as well as the numbers of people below the poverty level in different age groups.  The current study did not include an analysis of poverty status by age group, only of the total population below the poverty line.  The fraction of people below the poverty line was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group.  Thus, the population below the poverty line in each block was computed as follows:

		N(p,b/bg) =  N(T,b/bg) x N(p,bg) ∕ N(T,bg)	(6)

where:
	N(p,b/bg) =	number of people below the poverty line in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(T,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(p,bg) =	number of people below the poverty line in block group "bg"
	N(T,bg) =	total number of people in block group "bg"

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for people living below the poverty level.

3.5	Disability

      Table P42 of the SF3 dataset estimates the total number of people in each block group with disabilities, as well as the numbers of people with disabilities in different age groups.  This analysis includes the total number of working aged people (16 through 64 years of age) with a disability.  The fraction of working aged people with a disability was assumed to be the same for each block in the block group.  Thus, the population of working aged people with a disability in each block was computed as follows:

		N(d,b/bg) =  N(T,b/bg) x N(d,bg) ∕ N(T,bg)	(7)

where:
	N(d,b/bg) =	number of working aged people with a disability in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(T,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(d,bg) =	number of working aged people with a disability in block group "bg"
	N(T,bg) =	total number of people in block group "bg"

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for working aged people with a disability.
3.6	Linguistic Isolation

      Table P20 of the SF3 dataset estimates the fraction of households in linguistic isolation in each block group.  For this analysis, the fraction of people living in linguistic isolation for each block within the block group was assumed to be the same as the fraction of households in linguistic isolation for the block group.  Thus, the population of linguistically isolated people in each block was computed as follows:

		N(li,b/bg) =  F(li,bg) x N(t,b/bg)	(8)

where:
	N(li,b/bg) =	number of people in block "b" of block group "bg" living in linguistically isolated households
	F(li,bg) =	fraction of households in block group "bg" in linguistic isolation
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"

Equation (1) was then used to generate risk distributions based on the block-level results, and Equation (2) was used to compute the average risk for people living in linguistic isolation.
   4. Results

	The distribution of estimated lifetime inhalation cancer risks greater than or equal to 1 in a million or noncancer hazard indices greater than 1 for different demographic groups living near secondary lead smelting facilities is shown in Table 2.  For comparison purposes, Table 2 provides the nationwide percentages of the various demographic groups.  For the secondary lead smelting source category, the facility-wide emissions and risk distribution are equivalent to the source category emissions and risk distribution, thus a separate demographic analysis based on facility-wide emissions was not performed.  Moreover, for HAP other than lead, there were no estimated noncancer HI values greater than 1, thus we did not perform a demographic analysis on noncancer risks for any pollutants other than lead.  The demographic noncancer results for lead are presented in Table 2 as "Population with Ambient Lead Concentrations Exceeding the NAAQS," rather than as population with HI greater than 1, because lead concentrations were compared to the NAAQS rather than to a reference concentration.  Detailed demographics data and analyses used to create Table 2 can be found in Appendix A of this document.

	The results of the demographic analysis presented in Table 2 indicate that there are approximately 84,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million   The demographic analysis estimate that about 41% of this population can be classified as minority, and this minority figure is more than one-and-a-half times higher than the national minority percentage (of 25%).  More specifically, the demographic analysis estimates that about 52% of the population with excess cancer risk is classified as "Hispanic", and this percentage is nearly four times the national Hispanic percentage (of 14%).  Furthermore, 31% of the population estimated at a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million is classified as "Other and Multiracial", and this figure is nearly three times the national demographic for this category (at 12%).  The demographic analysis for cancer risk also estimates that 25% of the population at excess cancer risk has no high school diploma, and this is approximately twice the national percentage for this demographic (of 13%).  In addition, 21% of the population at excess cancer risk is below the poverty level, a figure which is more than one-and-a-half times the national percentage for this demographic (of 13%).  The age 0 to 17 demographic percentage (of 30%) is 3 percentage points higher than the corresponding national percentage for this demographic group (of 27%).  The working age with disability demographic (of 14%) is 2 percentage points higher than the corresponding national percentage (of 12%).  Finally, the linguistically isolated demographic (of 18.8%) is three-and-a-half times higher than the corresponding national percentage (of 5.4%).

	With respect to lead, the demographic results are below their corresponding national percentages for all racial and ethnic classifications, and similar to the national percentages for most other demographic categories.  There are modest percentage increases above the corresponding national percentages with respect to people 18 to 64 years old (4 points higher), people 65 years old and older (4 points higher), people below the poverty line (2 points higher) and people over 25 without a high school diploma (5 points higher).  However, considering that the total population affected is small (i.e., about 200 individuals in areas with lead concentrations above the NAAQS), this does not represent an appreciable difference.

Table 2.  Summary of Demographic Assessment of Risk Results for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category

                                Emissions Basis

                               Demographic Group

                                     Total
                                   Minority
                               African
American
                             Other and
Multiracial
                              Hispanic
or Latino
                               Native
American
                                 Ages 0
to 17
                                Ages 18
to 64
                                Ages 65
and up
                            Below the Poverty Level
                         Over 25 Without a HS Diploma

                               Working Age with
                                  Disability

                             Linguistic Isolation
Nationwide Demographic Breakdown
                                      n/a
                                  285,339,128
                                      25%
                                      12%
                                      12%
                                      14%
                                     0.9%
                                      27%
                                      60%
                                      12%
                                      13%
                                      13%
                                      12%
                                     5.4%

                         Maximum
Risk
(in 1 million)
      Population With Cancer Risk Greater Than or Equal to 1 in 1 million
Source Category
                                      50
                                    84,000
                                      41%
                                      8%
                                      31%
                                      52%
                                     0.8%
                                      30%
                                      60%
                                      9%
                                      21%
                                      25%
                                      14%
                                     18.8%

                              Maximum Lead Risk
        Population With Ambient Lead Concentrations Exceeding the NAAQS
Source Category
                            20 Times the Lead NAAQS
                                      200
                                      7%
                                      5%
                                      2%
                                      2%
                                     1.0%
                                      20%
                                      64%
                                      16%
                                      15%
                                      18%
                                      13%
                                     2.0%
Notes:

   * Source Category emissions were estimated based on ICR data collected in 2010.
   * Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
   * Population figures are for the population residing within 50 km from the center of these facilities whose cancer risks are estimated to be greater than or equal to 1 in a million, or whose noncancer hazard indices are estimated to be greater than 1 (based on exceeding the NAAQS for lead).
   * The maximum NAAQS exceedence for a centrally located point within any populated census block is 3.  (These locations are the block "internal points" as determined by the Bureau of Census.)  However, ambient lead concentrations as high as 20 times the NAAQS were predicted for receptors in the HEM-3 polar receptor network between the apparent plant boundary and the nearest points selected to represent populated census blocks.
   * There are no HIs > 1 for HAPS other than lead for the secondary lead smelting category.

   5. Uncertainty Discussion

	Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census forms), which are generally thought to be small, as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of census-block group data (e.g., income level and education level) down to the census block level.

	The uncertainties in these risk estimates include the same uncertainties in emissions data sets, in air dispersion modeling, in inhalation exposure and in dose response relationships that are associated with our source category risk estimates.

	The methodology for our demographic analyses is still evolving.  While this is our best attempt to provide useful information now, our thinking is continuously advancing.  EPA is in the process of developing technical guidance for environmental justice analyses.  We present these analyses, with their associated uncertainties, to EPA decision makers and the public as additional analyses to inform RTR decisions.
                                  Appendix A


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 67766]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0103]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that by letter received December 3, 2019,
Colorado Pacific Railroad, LLC (CXR) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
234. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0103.
    Specifically, CXR seeks a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR
234.247, Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of
relay or device failing to meet test requirements. CXR seeks this
relief to operate over five non-functioning highway-rail grade
crossings (HRGC) in Kiowa County, Colorado, without making inspections
and tests required in Sec.  234.249 through Sec.  234.271.
    The line runs from milepost (MP) 747.50 in Towner, Colorado, to NA
Junction, Colorado, at MP 869.40. CXR purchased the line in 2017, but
it has not yet started operations pending repair and rehabilitation of
the tracks that have been neglected for many years.
    CXR explains the HRGC warning signal system at each of the five
locations has been vandalized. CXR intends to rehabilitate the tracks
to meet FRA Class 2 standards with 25 miles per hour (MPH) operation,
with 10 MPH in Eads, Colorado, and Ordway, Colorado, with an average of
one train per day. Applications to the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission have been made for the five involved HRGCs. Four of the five
applications seek changing the active crossings to passive crossings,
and one application seeks to remove the gates, but keep the flashers.
    CXR explains it only seeks permission to temporarily use flagmen at
five HRGCs in relatively small Colorado towns to allow rail service
pending the reconstruction of rail signaling and equipment. The
expectation is that no more than one train of 25 cars per day would be
transported over these HRGCs for a period of 10 weeks. This rail
service would be over an approximately 62-mile-long segment of CXR's
122-mile rail line. This segment extends from Haswell, Colorado,
eastward to Towner, Colorado, where the CXR track interchanges with the
track of the Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad.
    CXR states there is a present urgency to permit this rail service.
Area wheat and milo farmers, in reliance upon restoration of rail
service to this territory, have delivered so much grain to one Haswell
facility, that it has been necessary to store a veritable mountain of
it on the ground. 2019 saw near record rainfall in this territory,
resulting in above average harvest amounts. To avoid the waste of these
harvested crops, expedited approval of flagman service to allow opening
of the railroad to service is necessary.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 10, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-26663 Filed 12-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57173]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4610-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

California; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California (FEMA-4610-DR), dated August 24, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 24, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of California is hereby amended to include Public
Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of August 24, 2021.

    Lassen, Nevada, Placer, and Plumas Counties for all categories
of Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance
and assistance for emergency protective measures [Category B],
limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).
    Tehama County for debris removal and emergency protective
measures [Categories A and B] (already designated for Individual
Assistance).
    Trinity County for all categories of Public Assistance (already
designated for Individual Assistance).

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22399 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31996-31997]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12532]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69613; File No. SR-EDGA-2013-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the EDGA Exchange, Inc.'s
Routing Broker Dealer, as Described in EDGA Rule 2.12(b)

May 21, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 16, 2013, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent the existing pilot program
that permits the Exchange's inbound router, as described in Rule
2.12(b), to receive inbound routes of equities orders through Direct
Edge ECN LLC d/b/a DE Route (``DE Route''), the Exchange's routing
broker dealer, from EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''). All of the changes
described herein are applicable to EDGA Members. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site
at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, DE Route is the approved outbound order routing facility
of EDGX.\4\ The Exchange has been authorized to receive inbound routes
of equities orders by DE Route from EDGX. The Exchange's authority to
receive inbound routes of equities orders by DE Route from EDGX is
currently subject to a pilot period of twelve months, ending June 30,
2013.\5\ The Exchange hereby seeks permanent approval to permit the
Exchange to accept inbound orders that DE Route routes in its capacity
as a facility of EDGX. This is reflected in the proposed amendment to
EDGA Rule 2.12(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61698 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66643 (March 22,
2012), 77 FR 18876 (March 28, 2012) (SR-EDGA-2012-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the pilot, the Exchange is committed to the following
obligations and conditions:
     The Exchange shall: (a) Enter into a plan pursuant to Rule
17d-2 under the Exchange Act with a non-affiliated self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') to relieve the Exchange of regulatory
responsibilities for DE Route with respect to rules that are common
rules between the Exchange and the SRO, and (b) enter into a regulatory
services contract (``Regulatory Contract'') with a non-affiliated SRO
to perform regulatory responsibilities for DE Route for unique Exchange
rules.
     The regulatory services contract shall require the
Exchange to provide the non-affiliated SRO with information, in an
easily accessible manner, regarding all exception reports, alerts,
complaints, trading errors, cancellations, investigations, and
enforcement matters (collectively ``Exceptions'') in which DE Route is
identified as a participant that has potentially violated Exchange or
SEC Rules, and shall require that the non-affiliated SRO provide a
report, at least quarterly, to the Exchange quantifying all Exceptions
in which DE Route is identified as a participant that has potentially
violated Exchange or SEC rules.
     The Exchange, on behalf of Direct Edge Holdings LLC, shall
establish and maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably
designed to ensure that DE Route does not develop or implement changes
to its system on the basis of non-public information obtained as a
result of its affiliation with

the Exchange until such information is available generally to similarly
situated Members \6\ in connection with the provision of inbound order
routing to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has complied with the above-listed conditions during
the pilot. In meeting them, the Exchange has set up mechanisms that
protect the independence of the Exchange's regulatory responsibility
with respect to DE Route, as well as demonstrate that DE Route cannot
use any information that it may have because of its affiliation with
the Exchange to its advantage. Since the Exchange has met all the
above-listed obligations and conditions, it now seeks permanent
approval of the Exchange and DE Route's inbound routing relationship.
Upon approval of the proposed rule change, the Exchange will continue
to comply with the obligations and conditions as set forth in proposed
EDGA Rule 2.12.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to
continue receiving inbound routes of equities orders from DE Route
acting in its capacity as a facility of EDGX, in a manner consistent
with prior approvals and established protections. The Exchange believes
that meeting the commitments established during the pilot program
demonstrates that the Exchange has mechanisms that protect the
independence of the Exchange's regulatory responsibility with respect
to DE Route, as well as demonstrates that DE Route cannot use any
information that it may have because of its affiliation with the
Exchange to its advantage.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change does
not impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition as it
would allow the Exchange to have a permanent inbound router consistent
with its competitors.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65453 (September 30,
2011), 76 FR 62122 (October 6, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-45); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64090 (March 17, 2011), 76 FR 16462 (March
23, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-007); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
66807 (April 13, 2012), 77 FR 23300 (April 18, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-
006); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66808 (April 13, 2012), 77
FR 23294 (April 18, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from its Members or other interested parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2013-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2013-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2013-13 and should be
submitted on or before June 18, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12532 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53194]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2201-001.
    Applicants: Harvest II Windfarm, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Application for Market-Based Rate
Authorization to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 8/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120822-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2311-001.
    Applicants: Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Application for Market-Based Rate
Authorization to be effective 9/24/2012.
    Filed Date: 8/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120822-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/12.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES12-47-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Information of ISO New England Inc.
    Filed Date: 8/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120822-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/03/12.

    Docket Numbers: ES12-48-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Information of ISO New England Inc.
    Filed Date: 8/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20120822-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/03/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 22, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21516 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 79880]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2362-044]

Allete, Inc.; Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality
Certification Application

    On December 19, 2022, Allete, Inc. submitted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a
Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed
with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Minnesota PCA), in
conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6
and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby
notify the Minnesota PCA of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 5.23(b).

Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: December 14, 2022
Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One year
(December 14, 2023)

    If the Minnesota PCA fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request on or before the above date, then the agency
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: December 21, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28252 Filed 12-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 26690-26692]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0518; FRL-8414-1]

Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam Sodium/Potassium, and Methyl
Bromide; Amendments to Reregistration Eligibility Decisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's decision to modify certain risk
mitigation measures that were specified in the 2008 Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for the soil fumigant pesticides
chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/potassium, and methyl bromide. EPA
conducted this reassessment of the chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/
potassium, and methyl bromide REDs in response to public comments
received during the comment period, and new data submitted by the
Chloropicrin Manufacturers' Task Force and the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation. Based on the new information received, and in a
continuing effort to mitigate risk, the Agency has made certain
modifications in the chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/potassium, and
methyl bromide REDs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For pesticide-specific information
contact the Chemical Review Manager identified in the Table in Unit II.
For general information contact John Leahy, Special Review and
Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Docket. EPA has established dockets for this action under the
docket ID numbers listed in the Table in Unit II. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) directs EPA to reevaluate existing pesticides to ensure
that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. In 2008,
EPA issued REDs for the soil fumigants chloropicrin, dazomet, metam
sodium/potassium, and methyl bromide under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA.
In response to a notice of availability published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 40871) (FRL-8372-3), the Agency
received substantive comments and new data and/or information from
commenters and the registrant(s). The Agency's response to comments is
available for viewing in the public dockets. The amended chloropicrin,
dazomet, metam sodium/potassium, and methyl bromide REDs reflect
changes resulting from Agency consideration of the comments and the new
data received on provisions of the RED, as well as efforts by the
Agency to appropriately mitigate overall risk. The RED amendments for
chloropicrin, dazomet, and metam sodium/potassium, conclude EPA's
reregistration eligibility decision-making process for these
pesticides. For methyl bromide, the RED amendment concludes EPA's
reregistration eligibility decision-making process for the soil uses of
this chemical. Amendments to the commodity uses of methyl bromide will
be concluded in the near future.
     Due to the broad scope of these decision documents the Agency put
the documents out for comment in 2008 to allow stakeholders the
opportunity to review and provide comments on issues related to the
implementation of the risk management measures. The Agency received
numerous comments on the RED mitigation measures and has made changes
to the following measures based on a review of the impacts and risks
described in the comments: buffer zones, buffer zone posting,
respiratory protection, tarp perforation and removal, good agricultural
practices, fumigant management plans, fumigant site monitoring,
response information to neighbors, training, and notice to state and
tribal lead agencies. The Agency also received new chloropicrin and
dazomet flux studies and has taken these new studies into consideration
and revised the chloropicrin and dazomet buffer zone tables. The label
table incorporated into the chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/
potassium, and methyl bromide RED amendments includes modifications
which specify label language for the changes to the mitigation measures
described above.

                        Table--Fumigant Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Chemical Review
  Reregistration Case Name and                        Manager, Telephone
             Number                Docket ID Number     Number, E-mail
                                                            Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chloropicrin, 0040                EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03  Andrea Carone
                                   50<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      carone.andrea@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dazomet, 2135                     EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-01  Dana L. Friedman
                                   28<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      friedman.dana@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metam Sodium/Potassium, 2390      EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-01  Karen Santora
                                   25<PHONE_NUMBER>
                                                      santora.karen@epa.
                                                       gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methyl Bromide, 0335              EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-01  Susan Bartow
                                   23<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                       ov
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in
product-specific data on individual end-use products and either
reregistering products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory
action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: May 15, 2009.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-12559 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:28 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: question about door seals

Hello again, Donna Lee.

I canvassed the COETF members regarding your question.  We are not aware of any specific information or more recent reports on the conceptual recommendations from the Battelle study.  But, more generally and as you know, U.S. coke batteries have been constructed and re-constructed since the mid-1970s, and we believe those batteries would have incorporated the available designs and measures for door seals, jambs, etc.  Any door leak emission improvements from these types of measures would have been considered in the coke batteries Subpart L reg. neg. in the 1990s, and reflected in the original Subpart L NESHAP.

Contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< 1975-Batelle-AISI- EPA-Door-Leak-report.pdf >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:55 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'Raymond, Gabrielle'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [SPAM-Sender] RE: question about door seals

Soon. 3 weeks?

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:51 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'Raymond, Gabrielle'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: [SPAM-Sender] RE: question about door deals

How quickly do you need an answer?  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:26 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: question about door deals

Hi. Another hopefully easily answered question. I ran across this old document that seemed very thorough and had the conclusions listed below. Would your members say that the recommendations were followed or accomplished in the many years that followed? If you have more recent reports, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Study of Concepts for Minimizing Emissions from Coke-Oven Door Seals. Prepared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. July 1975.

In 1974, a research project was performed by Batelle's Columbus laboratory to study concepts for minimizing emissions from coke-oven door seals. The study was funded jointly by the EPA and the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), and was monitored by the EPA. The major objective was to derive, originate, and evaluate practical concepts for significantly improved systems for retrofittable sealing of coke-oven doors.

The recommendations included (1) the use of more-flexible and more heat-resistant metal door seals; (2) development of a more dimensionally stable door jambs for both new coke-oven batteries and replacement of some jambs at existing batteries; and (3) evaluating the performance of various sealants because using sealants of some variety between the door and the jamb surface has the potential for totally eliminating door emissions.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76499-76501]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31303]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries
or zone designations, and/or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter
referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the
table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood
hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

DATES: The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table
below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that
publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard determinations are the basis for
the

floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These new or modified flood hazard determinations, together with
the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the
minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that
the community must change any existing ordinances that are more
stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community
may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to
policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    These new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Chief executive officer       Community map                                       Community
         State and county           Location and case No.         of community             repository        Effective date of modification      No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Coconino (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Flagstaff (12- The Honorable Sara         City Hall,            September 20, 2012.............       040020
     1268).                          09-1074P).             Presler, Mayor, City of    Stormwater
                                                            Flagstaff, 211 West        Management Section,
                                                            Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff,   211 West Aspen
                                                            AZ 86001.                  Avenue, Flagstaff,
                                                                                AZ 86001.
    Pima (FEMA Docket No.: B-1268)  Town of Marana (12-09- The Honorable Ed Honea,    Engineering           September 10, 2012.............       040118
                                     0475P).                Mayor, Town of Marana,     Department, 11555
                                                            11555 West Civic Center    West Civic Center
                                                            Drive, Marana, AZ 85653.   Drive, Marana, AZ
                                                                                85653.
California:
    Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.:   City of Long Beach     The Honorable Bob Foster,  City Hall, 333 West   October 5, 2012................       060136
     B-1268).                        (12-09-0872P).         Mayor, City of Long        Ocean Boulevard,
                                                            Beach, 333 West Ocean      9th Floor, Long
                                                            Boulevard, 14th Floor,     Beach, CA 90802.
                                                            Long Beach, CA 90802.
    San Diego (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of Poway (12-09-  The Honorable Don          City Hall, 13325      September 28, 2012.............       060702
     1268).                          1309P).                Higginson, Jr., Mayor,     Civic Center Drive,
                                                            City of Poway, 13325       Poway, CA 92064.
                                                            Civic Center Drive,
                                                            Poway, CA 92064.
    San Diego (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Ron          San Diego County      September 13, 2012.............       060284
     1268).                          of San Diego County    Roberts, Chairman, San     Department of
                                     (11-09-3923P).         Diego County Board of      Public Works, Flood
                                                            Supervisors, 1600          Control Division,
                                                            Pacific Highway, Room      5201 Ruffin Road,
                                                            335, San Diego, CA 92101.  Suite P, San Diego,
                                                                                CA 92123.
Colorado:
    Adams (FEMA Docket No.: B-      City of Aurora (12-08- The Honorable Steve        Engineering           August 24, 2012................       080002
     1268).                          0046P).                Hogan, Mayor, City of      Department, 15151
                                                            Aurora, 15151 East         East Alameda
                                                            Alameda Parkway, Aurora,   Parkway, Aurora, CO
                                                            CO 80012.                  80012.
    Denver (FEMA Docket No.: B-     City and County of     The Honorable Michael B.   Department of Public  October 5, 2012................       080046
     1268).                          Denver (12-08-0237P).  Hancock, Mayor, City and   Works, 201 West
                                                            County of Denver, 1437     Colfax Avenue,
                                                            Bannock Street, Suite      Department 507,
                                                            350, Denver, CO 80202.     Denver, CO 80202.
    El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Colorado       The Honorable Steve Bach,  City Administration,  October 8, 2012................       080060
     1268).                          Springs (12-08-        Mayor, City of Colorado    30 South Nevada
                                     0218P).                Springs, 30 South Nevada   Avenue, Colorado
                                                            Avenue, Colorado           Springs, CO 80903.
                                                            Springs, CO 80903.
    Larimer (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Town of Estes Park     The Honorable William C.   Municipal Building,   October 1, 2012................       080193
     1268).                          (11-08-0971P).         Pinkham, Mayor, Town of    170 MacGregor
                                                            Estes Park, P.O. Box       Avenue, Estes Park,
                                                            1200, Estes Park, CO       CO 80517.
                                                            80517.
Florida:
    Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas   The Honorable David Rice,  Monroe County         September 20, 2012.............       125129
     1268).                          of Monroe County (12-  Mayor, Monroe County,      Building
                                     04-2446P).             9400 Overseas Highway,     Department, 2798
                                                            Suite 210, Marathon        Overseas Highway,
                                                            Airport Terminal,          Suite 330,
                                                            Marathon, FL 33050.        Marathon, FL 33050.
    Orange (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Teresa       Orange County         October 5, 2012................       120179
     1268).                          of Orange County (11-  Jacobs, Mayor, Orange      Stormwater
                                     04-6805P).             County, 201 South          Management
                                                            Rosalind Avenue,           Department, 4200
                                                            Orlando, FL 32801.         South John Young
                                                                                Parkway, Orlando,
                                                                                FL 32839.
    Orange (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Teresa       Orange County         September 21, 2012.............       120179
     1268).                          of Orange County (12-  Jacobs, Mayor, Orange      Stormwater
                                     04-2577P).             County, 201 South          Management
                                                            Rosalind Avenue,           Department, 4200
                                                            Orlando, FL 32801.         South John Young
                                                                                Parkway, Orlando,
                                                                                FL 32839.
    Pinellas (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Treasure       The Honorable Robert       City Hall, Building   September 20, 2012.............       125153
     1268).                          Island (12-04-2824P).  Minning, Mayor, City of    Department, 120
                                                            Treasure Island, 120       108th Avenue,
                                                            108th Avenue, Treasure     Treasure Island, FL
                                                            Island, FL 33706.          33706.
Nevada:
    Washoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-     City of Sparks (11-09- The Honorable Gino         City Hall, 431        September 21, 2012.............       320021
     1268).                          3429P).                Martini, Mayor, City of    Prater Way, Sparks,
                                                            Sparks, P.O. Box 857,      NV 89432.
                                                            Sparks, NV 89432.
    Washoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Robert       Washoe County         September 21, 2012.............       320019
     1268).                          of Washoe County (11-  Larkin, Chairman, Washoe   Administration
                                     09-3429P).             County Board of            Building,
                                                            Commissioners, P.O. Box    Department of
                                                            11130, Reno, NV 89520.     Public Works, 1001
                                                                                East 9th Street,
                                                                                Reno, NV 89512.
South Carolina:
    Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of Columbia (11-  The Honorable Steve        City Hall, 1737 Main  October 1, 2012................       450172
     1268).                          04-0263P).             Benjamin, Mayor, City of   Street, Columbia,
                                                            Columbia, 1737 Main        SC 29201.
                                                            Street, Columbia, SC
                                                            29201.

    York (FEMA Docket No.: B-1268)  City of Rock Hill (12- The Honorable Doug         City Hall, 155        September 17, 2012.............       450196
                                     04-0821P).             Echols, Mayor, City of     Johnson Street,
                                                            Rock Hill, P.O. Box        Rock Hill, SC 29731.
                                                            11706, Rock Hill, SC
                                                            29731.
Utah:
    Wasatch (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Town of Independence   The Honorable Phil Sweat,  4530 East Center      August 30, 2012................       490263
     1268).                          (12-08-0153P).         Mayor, Town of             Creek Road, Heber
                                                            Independence, 4530 East    City, UT 84032.
                                                            Center Creek Road, Heber
                                                            City, UT 84032.
    Wasatch (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Michael L.   188 South Main,       August 30, 2012................       490164
     1268).                          of Wasatch County      Kohler, Chairman,          Heber City, UT
                                     (12-08-0153P).         Wasatch County Board of    84032.
                                                            Commissioners, 25 North
                                                            Main, Heber City, UT
                                                            84032.
Wyoming:
    Laramie (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Cheyenne (11-  The Honorable Richard      Engineer's Office,    September 27, 2012.............       560030
     1268).                          08-0928P).             Kaysen, Mayor, City of     2101 O'Neil Avenue,
                                                            Cheyenne, 2101 O'Neil      Room 206, Cheyenne,
                                                            Avenue, Room 310,          WY 82001.
                                                            Cheyenne, WY 82001.
    Laramie (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Gay          Laramie County        September 27, 2012.............       560029
     1268).                          of Laramie County      Woodhouse, Chairman,       Planning
                                     (11-08-0928P).         Laramie County Board of    Department,
                                                            Commissioners, 310 West    Historic County
                                                            19th Street, Suite 300,    Courthouse, 310
                                                            Cheyenne, WY 82001.        West 19th Street,
                                                                                Suite 400,
                                                                                Cheyenne, WY 82001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-31303 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P