[Federal Register: November 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64520-64521]
[DOCID:fr02no06-37]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0059; FRL-8238-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund
Program; EPA ICR No. 1803.05, OMB Control No. 2040-0185

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 4,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2002-0059, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Rubin, Mail Code 4606M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 5, 2006 (70 FR 32342), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0059, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC).

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to
view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 54815
(September 19, 2006) or the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
 for current information on docket status,

locations and telephone numbers.

    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund Program.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1803.05, OMB Control No. 2040-0185.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR,
after

appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-182) authorized the creation of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program in each State and Puerto Rico to assist
public water systems in financing the costs of infrastructure needed to
achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to protect
public health. Section 1452 authorizes the Administrator of EPA to
award capitalization grants to the States and Puerto Rico which, in
turn, provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible
drinking water systems. States can also reserve a portion of their
grants to conduct various set-aside activities. The information
collection activities will occur primarily at the program level through
the (1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended
Use Plan; (2) Biennial Report; (3) Annual Audit; and (4) Assistance
Application Review. Information collected is needed for input into the
DWSRF National Information Management System.
    (1) Capitalization Grant Application and Agreement/State Intended
Use Plan: The State must prepare a Capitalization Grant Application
that includes an Intended Use Plan (IUP), outlining in detail how it
will use all the funds covered by the capitalization grant. The State
may, as an alternative, develop the IUP in a two part process with one
part identifying the distribution and uses of the funds among the
various set-asides in the DWSRF program and the other part dealing with
project assistance from the Fund.
    (2) Biennial Report: The State must agree to complete and submit a
Biennial Report on the uses of the capitalization grant. The scope of
the report must cover assistance provided by the DWSRF Fund and all
other set-aside activities included under the Capital Grant Agreement.
States, which jointly administer DWSRF and Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) programs, in accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may
submit reports (according to the schedule specified for each program)
that cover both programs.
    (3) Annual Audit: A State must comply with the provisions of the
Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. Best management practices suggest
and EPA recommends that a State conduct an annual independent audit of
its DWSRF program. The scope of the report must cover the DWSRF Fund
and all other set-aside activities included in the Capitalization Grant
Agreement. States which jointly administer DWSRF and CWSRF programs, in
accordance with section 1452(g)(1), may submit audits that cover both
programs but which report financial information for each program
separately.
    (4) Assistance Application Review: Local applicants seeking
financial assistance must prepare and submit DWSRF loan applications.
States then review completed loan applications and verify that proposed
projects will comply with applicable Federal and State requirements.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 131
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State and local governments,
businesses, and non-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1505 respondents per year.
    Frequency of Response: Annual for State Grant Applications and
Audit reports, Biennial for State Annual Reports, once per loan
applications for loan applicants.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 196,870 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,862,452, which includes $0 capital
and O&M.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,935 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase reflects EPA's calculation of
burden for Biennial Reports.

    Dated: October 26, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-18495 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71846]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[ File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Encore Clean Energy, Inc., Energy & Engine
Technology Corp., Equity Media Holdings Corporation, eTotalSource,
Inc., Extensions, Inc., Firepond, Inc., and GNC Energy Corporation;
Order of Suspension of Trading

November 29, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Encore Clean Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Energy & Engine Technology Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2005.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Equity Media Holdings Corporation because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
eTotalSource, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Extensions, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Firepond, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended December 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
GNC Energy Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports
since the period ended September 30, 2003.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on November 29, 2012, through 11:59
p.m. EST on December 12, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29219 Filed 11-29-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51555-51556]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10000-46-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference and Public Meeting of the
Chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces
two meetings of the Chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC). A public teleconference will be held to receive public
comments for the CASAC to consider in their peer review of EPA's Policy
Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft--September 2019). A face-
to-face meeting will be held to conduct the peer review of EPA's Policy
Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft--September 2019).

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on Tuesday, October 22,
2019, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The Chartered CASAC
public face-to-face meeting will be held on Thursday, October 24, 2019,
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) and Friday, October 25, 2019
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone
only. The public face-to-face meeting will be held at the Embassy
Suites by Hilton Raleigh Durham Research Triangle, 201 Harrison Oaks
Boulevard, Cary, North Carolina, 27513.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning these public meetings may contact Mr.
Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information about the CASAC, as well as any
updates concerning the meetings announced in this notice, may be found
on the CASAC website at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was
established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
(42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The
CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the
scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CASAC shall also:
Advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is
required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or
revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the
required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative
contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as
anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse
public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may
result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such
NAAQS. The CAA requires that the Agency, at five-year intervals, review
and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for
the six ``criteria'' air pollutants, including particulate matter. EPA
is currently reviewing the NAAQS for particulate matter.
    The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The Chartered
CASAC will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB
Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy,
notice is hereby given that the Chartered CASAC will hold a public
teleconference and a public face-to-face meeting. The purpose of the
teleconference will be for the Chartered CASAC to receive public
comments for their consideration in their peer review of EPA's Policy
Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft--September 2019). The
purpose of the face-to-face meeting is to conduct a peer review of
EPA's Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft--
September 2019).
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the Policy
Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft--September 2019) should
be directed to Dr. Scott Jenkins (jenkins.scott@epa.gov).
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the
calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments on the topic of this
advisory activity, including the charge to the CASAC and the EPA review
documents, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to
consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the
CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or
technical information or analysis for CASAC to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment

should follow the instructions below to submit comments.
    Oral Statements: Individuals or groups requesting an oral
presentation during the October 22, 2019, teleconference will be
limited to five minutes. Each person making an oral statement should
consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so
that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing.
Interested parties should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing
(preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by
October 15, 2019, to be placed on the list of public speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by CASAC
members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via
email) at the contact information noted above by October 15, 2019. It
is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the
web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are
requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the
SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its
websites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal
contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted
to the CASAC website. Copyrighted material will not be posted without
explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202)
564-2050 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior
to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: September 17, 2019.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2019-21199 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69499-69501]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27630]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70864; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-89]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 957NY To
Provide That a Pattern or Practice of Late Reporting of Option
Transactions to the Exchange for Dissemination to the Options Price
Reporting Authority Is Subject to Disciplinary Action

November 13, 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 October 31, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
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 amend Rule 957NY to provide that a pattern
or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange
for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority is subject
to disciplinary action. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 957NY to provide that a pattern
or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange
for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'')
is subject to disciplinary action, including fines. Current Rule 957NY
requires an ATP Holder to immediately report option transactions to the
Exchange. The rule further provides that transactions not reported to
OPRA within 90 seconds after execution will be designated ``late,'' and
that an ATP Holder who is responsible for late reporting of an option
transaction, without reasonable justification or excuse, will be
subject to a fine under Section 9A. Thus, under current rule 957NY, a
single late-reported transaction is subject to a fine.
    To have more flexibility in evaluating whether late reporting of
option transactions should be subject to a fine, the Exchange proposes
to amend the rule to provide that ``a pattern or practice'' of late
reporting of option transactions to the Exchange would constitute a
violation of the 90-second reporting requirement. While the Exchange's
proposal does not expressly define what a ``pattern or practice'' of
late reporting is, the Exchange will apply its existing Sanctions
Guidelines, which are contained in Rule 476, Supplementary Material
.10. Rule 476, Supplementary Material .10 contains both general
guidelines for considering and determining the applicability of

sanctions under various Exchange rules, and guidelines specific to
violations of particular Exchange rules, including ``Trade Reporting--
Late Reporting,'' among other rules.\4\ Moreover, in determining
appropriate disciplinary action for late reporting of option
transactions, the Exchange may apply, at its discretion, the Minor Rule
Plan contained in Rule 476A, Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule(s)
Violations for minor violations of Rule 957NY,\5\ which would result in
a fine from $1,500 up to $5,000, or Rule 476 in the case of more
serious late reporting violations. Rule 476 lists suggested monetary
sanctions for violations of Rule 957NY that range from $1,000 to
$50,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 476, Supplementary Material .10 Sanctions Guidelines
includes an aggregation provision under subparagraph (B.) General
Principles Applicable to All Sanction Determinations (4) to guide
the Exchange in determining whether to aggregate, or ``batch''
violations together, thereby treating them as one ``violation'' for
purposes of determining sanctions if the misconduct meets certain
objective parameters, such as ``(B) Whether the violations involved
unintentional or negligent misconduct or manipulative, fraudulent,
or deceptive intent. (If aggregated, the violations should not have
involved manipulative, fraudulent, or deceptive intent).'' Rule 476,
Supplementary Material .10(C.) Principal Considerations in
Determining Sanctions includes ``(6) whether the named party engaged
in numerous acts and/or a pattern of misconduct.'' Additionally,
Rule 476, Supplementary Material .10(C) also provides that ``(14)
The number, size, and character of the transactions at issue'' are
to be considered among principal considerations in determining
sanctions.
    \5\ Failure to comply with the reporting duties of Rule 957NY is
listed as subject to fine under the Minor Rule Plan contained in
Rule 476A, Supplementary Material Part 1C.(i)(27), according to the
Minor Rule Plan Fine Schedule provided in Rule 476A, Supplementary
Material Part 1C.(iii)(i)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially
similar to current rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') Rule 6.51(a) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule
1051(a).\6\ Both CBOE and PHLX rules utilize the ``pattern or
practice'' standard for evaluating late trade reporting violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.51(a); PHLX Rule 1051(a). PHLX rules also
permit, but do not require the exchange, in evaluating whether a
pattern or practice of rules violations exists, to aggregate or
``batch'' individual order handling violations as a single
occurrence of a violation of a specific order handling rule by a
member or member organization over a specific time period. See PHLX
Rule 970.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that the proposed amendment providing the Exchange with flexibility in
determining whether an ATP Holder's late reporting of option
transactions to the Exchange constitutes a pattern or practice that
should subject the late reporter to disciplinary action addresses an
inconsistency between in [sic] the processes for adjudication of late-
trade reporting on NYSE MKT and those of other self-regulatory
organizations. Eliminating this inconsistency will help foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities. Moreover, the proposed rule change would
not result in any material diminution of the Exchange's overall
enforcement authority or any material change in surveillance of late-
trade reporting. As such, the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it would continue to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange's
proposal allows the Exchange to compete more effectively with other
options exchanges that currently have rules in effect substantially
similar to what the Exchange now proposes.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\ Because
the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEMKT-2013-89 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-NYSEMKT-2013-89. 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 Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, 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 Exchange's principal office and on its Internet Web site at
www.nyse.com. 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-
NYSEMKT-2013-89 and should be submitted on or before December 10, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27630 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14475-14477]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05210]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1341; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-47]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Cleveland, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at
Cleveland, TN, to accommodate the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at
Cleveland Regional Jetport. This action would enhance the safety and
airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2013. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of
conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation,

Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax:
202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2012-1341;
Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-47, at the beginning of your comments. You
may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-1341; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-47) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-1341; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-47.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at
Cleveland, TN, providing the controlled airspace required to support
the RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Cleveland
Regional Jetport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface would be established within a 7.4-mile radius of the
airport, with an extension from the radius to 12 miles southwest of the
airport for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Cleveland
Regional Jetport, Cleveland, TN.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Cleveland, TN [New]

Cleveland Regional Jetport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]12'41'' N., long. 84[deg]47'59'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of Cleveland Regional Jetport, and within
2-miles each side of the 209[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 12-miles southwest of the
airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 15, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-05210 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Stage 1 emissions are calculated by multiplying gasoline throughput times an emission factor. The emission factor has 3 components: transit losses, filling losses, and breathing losses. Transit and breathing losses are the same whether the station has Stage 1 vapor recovery. There are different factors for filling losses depending on whether vapor recovery is used. Total factors for controlled and uncontrolled filling are thus as shown below: Uncontrolled Controlled lb/ 1000 gal lb/ 1000 gal Transit 0.06 0.06 Filling 7.30 0.30 Breathing 1.00 1.00 TOTAL 8.36 1.36 Projected throughputs were obtained by Bertie Fernando for 2007 in the 5 new DFW counties and separated according to station monthly throughput based on CAPCO study.

2007 gallons per month County < 10,000 10k 125k > 125k Total Ellis 13,404 4,855,154 2,390,170 7,258,727 Johnson 12,520 4,534,859 2,242,851 6,790,230 Kaufman 11,145 4,037,059 1,991,656 6,039,860 Parker 8,342 3,031,002 1,490,694 4,530,038 Rockwall 4,563 1,652,696 815,328 2,472,587 2007 gallons per day County < 10,000 10k 125k > 125k Total Ellis 441 159,709 78,624 238,774 Johnson 412 149,173 73,778 223,363 Kaufman 367 132,798 65,515 198,680 Parker 274 99,704 49,036 149,014 Rockwall 150 54,365 26,820 81,335 Uncontrolled 2007 emissions: < 10,000 10k 125k > 125k Total Ellis 0.002 0.668 0.329 1.00 Johnson 0.002 0.624 0.308 0.93 Kaufman 0.002 0.555 0.274 0.83 Parker 0.001 0.417 0.205 0.62 Rockwall 0.001 0.227 0.112 0.34 TOTAL 0.007 2.490 1.228 3.73 Fully controlled 2007 emissions: < 10,000 10k 125k > 125k Total Ellis 0.002 0.109 0.053 0.16 Johnson 0.002 0.101 0.050 0.15 Kaufman 0.002 0.090 0.045 0.14 Parker 0.001 0.068 0.033 0.10 Rockwall 0.001 0.037 0.018 0.06 TOTAL 0.007 0.405 0.200 0.61 Projected emissions in 2007 with no controls: 3.73 tpd Projected emissions in 2007 with controls on only > 125K stations: 2.70 tpd Projected emissions in 2007 with controls on 10  125K and > 125K stations: 0.61 tpd Projected reduction from extending controls to 10  125k stations: 2.09 tpd tons per day thurley 8/ 23/ 2006 DRAFT DELIBERATIVE POLICY INFORMATION INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY Suppplied by Bertie Fernando 2/ 16/ 06 UNCONTROLED EMISSIONS IN 2007 ( TPD)

Transit 0.0267 Breathing 0.4557 ( NO Controls) Submerged Filling 3.2457 TOTAL 3.7281 CONTROLED EMISSIONS IN 2007 ( TPD)

Transit 0.0267 Breathing 0.4557 ( WITH CONTROLS) Balanced Submerged Filling 0.1335 TOTAL 0.6159 GPM= gallons per month 2002 < 10,000( GPM) 10k 125k ( GPM) > 125k ( GPM)

Ellis 13,404 4,714,651 2,320,994 Johnson 12,520 4,403,612 2,172,484 Kaufman 11,145 3,920,245 1,934,019 Parker 8,342 2,934,169 1,447,547 Rockwall 4,563 1,604,870 791,749 DATA USED FOR THE VOC EMISSION ESTIMATE IS GIVEN BELOW TOTAL VOC EMISSION REDUCTION = 3.7281 0.6159 = 3.1122 ( TPD) GPD= gallons per day 2002 10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD)

Ellis 155,087 76,349 Johnson 144,856 71,643 Kaufman 128,955 63,619 Parker 96,519 47,617 Rockwall 52,792 26,044 Using EGAS Growth Factors 2007 Throughput Data GPD= gallons per day 10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD)

Ellis 159,709 78,624 Johnson 149,173 73,778 Kaufman 132,798 65,515 Parker 99,704 49,036 Rockwall 54,365 26,820 2002 Submerged Filling Emissions ( TPD) 2501060051 EF= 7.3 lb/ 1000gals No Controls 10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD)

0.56610 0.27867 0.52872 0.26150 0.47069 0.23221 0.35230 0.17380 0.19270 0.09506 TOTAL 2.11051 1.04124 2007 Submerged Filling Emissions ( TPD) 2501060051 EF= 7.3 lb/ 1000gals No Controls 10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD)

0.58300 0.28700 0.54450 0.26930 0.48470 0.23910 0.36280 0.17900 0.19840 0.09790 TOTAL 2.17340 1.07230 2007 Balanced Submerged Filling Emissions ( TPD) 2501060053 EF= 0.3 lb/ 1000gals ( THIS IS With Controls)

10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD)

0.02400 0.01180 0.02240 0.01110 0.01992 0.00983 0.01491 0.00736 0.00815 0.00400 TOTAL 0.08938 0.04409 2002 Breathing 2002 Transit Emissions ( TPD) 2501060201 Emissions ( TPD) 2505030120 EF= 1lb/ 1000gals EF= 0.06 lb/ 1000gals 10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD) 10k 125k ( GPD > 125k ( GPD)

0.07754 0.03817 Ellis 0.00470 0.00230 0.07243 0.03582 Johnson 0.00440 0.00230 0.06450 0.03181 Kaufman 0.00387 0.00190 0.04826 0.02308 Parker 0.00290 0.00143 0.02640 0.01302 Rockwall 0.00160 0.00080 0.28913 0.14190 TOTAL 0.01747 0.00873 2007 Breathing 2007 Transit Emissions ( TPD) 2501060201 Emissions ( TPD) 2505030120 EF= 1lb/ 1000gals EF= 0.06 lb/ 1000gals 10k 125k ( GPD) > 125k ( GPD) 10k 125k ( GPD > 125k ( GPD)

0.08000 0.03633 Ellis 0.00480 0.00236 0.07467 0.03683 Johnson 0.00448 0.00221 0.06633 0.03283 Kaufman 0.00398 0.00197 0.04983 0.02450 Parker 0.00299 0.00147 0.02717 0.02717 Rockwall 0.00163 0.00081 0.29800 0.15766 TOTAL 0.01788 0.00882


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR

USCG ACADEMY APPLICATION &

SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS

OMB Control No.: 1625-0004

Collection Instruments:  Instruction,

Application: CGA-14, CGA-14A, CGA-14B, CGA-14D

A.  Justification

Explain circumstances that make collection of information necessary.

The appointment of permanent commissioned officers in the regular United
States Coast Guard (USCG) from the United States Coast Guard Academy
(USCGA) is authorized by 14 USC 211.  The authority to operate the USCGA
is contained in 14 USC 181.  The regulation and administration of the
USCGA is the responsibility of the Superintendent, subject to the
direction of the Commandant of the USCG under the general supervision of
the Secretary of Homeland Security.  One of the Superintendent’s
responsibilities is to ensure that qualified individuals from the public
at large have every opportunity to compete for a cadet appointment.  The
USCGA Application and Supplemental Forms (High School or College
Transcript, English Instructor Evaluation, Math Instructor Evaluation,
and Physical Fitness Examination Scoring Form) ensure the collection of
information necessary to select the best applicants.

Indicate how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose information
is to be used.

This application and supplemental forms enable men and women between 17
and 22 years old to apply for an appointment as Cadet, USCG at the
USCGA.  The application is traditionally made available annually from
August 1st to February 1st to the general public through the USCGA
Admissions website at www.uscga.edu/apply.  Without this application,
the public would have no method of applying for an appointment to the
USCGA since information collected from these forms is not available
through any other source.

Successful respondents who meet all the application and selection
criteria receive an appointment as Cadet, USCG and orders to attend the
USCGA for four years.  Cadets attend the USCGA with appropriate military
pay/benefits and at no further financial burden to them.  They are
obligated to serve in the USCG for five years upon graduation from the
USCGA.

Describe whether, and to what extent the collection of information
involves the use of automated or other collection techniques.

This application is web-based and completed online by the applicant.
Data from the application will be reviewed online by USCGA, but may be
printed for future review and archive storage.

These supplemental forms are web-based and completed online by the
applicant’s school counselor and recommenders.  Data from these
supplemental forms will be reviewed online by USCGA, but may be printed
for future review and archive storage.

Describe efforts to identify duplication.

This information is not available from any source except the applicant,
their school counselor, and individual recommenders.  Additionally, the
USCGA is the only entity authorized to obtain this information from the
public for admissions selection to the USCGA.  The application is
designed for efficient operation, reducing the amount of information
(e.g., Name, E-Mail Address) that must be entered repeatedly.  The
supplemental forms are pre-populated with data provided within the
application.

Does collection of information impact small businesses?

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if
collection is not conducted.

If the USCGA were not allowed to collect this information it could no
longer receive applications or review applicants for cadet appointments.
 The USCGA would be unable to enroll new classes and the USCG’s
officer corps would be dangerously reduced.

 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information
collection to be conducted in a certain manner.

There are no special circumstances.  This information collection is
conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5CFR
1320.5(d)(2).

8.   If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number
of publication in

      the Federal Register of the agency's notice, soliciting comments
on the information

      collection.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value to respondents for this
information collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents
and the basis for the

       assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

The information obtained from the USCGA application and supplemental
forms falls under the Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Regulations;
applicants are informed of this in writing.  This information collection
is covered by a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and System of Records
Notice (SORN).

Privacy Impact Assessment for the United States Coast Guard Academy
Information System (ACADIS) dated January 26, 2010 (copy submitted with
request).

Privacy Act of 1974; United States Coast Guard--014 Military Pay and
Personnel System of Records Notice (DHS/USCG-014) [December 19, 2008;
Docket No. DHS-2008-0108; Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 235, Pages
77743-77747] (copy submitted with request).

Privacy Act of 1974; United States Coast Guard--027 Recruiting Files
System of Records Notice (DHS/USCG-027) [August 10, 2011; Docket No.
DHS-2011-0062; Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 154, Pages 49494-49497]
(copy submitted with request).

11.  Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive
nature.

Applicants are asked to provide short answers (one paragraph in length)
to the following questions to ensure compliance with current USCG and
USCGA accession policies:

Have you ever been detained, arrested, summoned into court or
participated in a

diversion or probation program?  If yes, please briefly explain.

Criminal history may prohibit an applicant from attending the USCGA
based on the Coast Guard Personnel Manual, so this question is necessary
to confirm eligibility and learn more about the applicant’s
background.

Do you have any tattoos, brandings, or body piercings?  If yes, please
briefly describe.

Some tattoos, brandings, or body piercings, depending upon location and
subject, may prohibit an applicant from attending the USCGA based on the
Coast Guard Personnel Manual, so this question is necessary to confirm
eligibility.

Will you or did you receive any special accommodations - such as
extended or

unlimited time - when taking the SAT Reasoning or ACT exam?  If yes,
please briefly explain.

The USCGA requires at least one set of SAT Reasoning or ACT scores from
an exam administered without any special accommodations based on the
USCGA Applicant Handbook, so this question is necessary to confirm
eligibility and determine the applicant’s academic readiness to
succeed at the USCGA.

Answers to these eligibility questions will not prohibit an applicant
from applying, but may place their application in a “Hold” status
pending the receipt of additional information verifying their
eligibility to attend the USCGA.

Applicants are asked to provide personal statements (one page in length)
to the following prompts to learn more about their background and unique
life experiences:

The Coast Guard Academy’s mission is to develop leaders of character.
Describe examples of your leadership experience from the past three
years in which you have significantly influenced others, helped resolve
disputes, or contributed to group efforts over time.

Leadership training is paramount in the education of future Coast Guard
officers at the USCGA, so past leadership experience or exposure may
make an applicant more competitive for appointment.

Describe your experience facing or witnessing discrimination or unfair
treatment.  Tell us how you responded, what you learned from those
experiences, and how you believe they prepared you to contribute to the
Coast Guard Academy community.

Respect is one of the USCG’s and USCGA’s core values, so applicants
who have been exposed to and matured from issues in this arena may be
more competitive for appointment.  The USCGA believes an applicant’s
reaction to facing or witnessing discrimination or unfair treatment is
one of the best indicators to determine an applicant’s ability to
respect others and contribute to the climate of inclusion present at the
USCGA.

These topics are very similar to essay questions that the other service
academies and civilian colleges ask their applicants to determine fit
for their individual institutions; these personal statements assist the
USCGA in selecting the most qualified applicants for appointment.
Applicants are informed in writing that information submitted in their
application, including their personal statements, is protected under the
Privacy Act.

12.  Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of
information.

Number of respondents, frequency, hour burden as follows:

Online Application (OA)			4.00 hrs x 2500 = 10000

High School Transcript (HST)		1.30 hrs x 2000 =   2600

College Transcript (CT)			0.30 hrs x   500 =     150

English Instructor Eval (EIE)			1.25 hrs x 2000 =   2500

Math Instructor Eval (MIE)			1.25 hrs x 2000 =   2500

Physical Fitness Exam (PFE)			2.00 hrs x 2000 =   4000

        Total number of hours = 21750

Cost figured at $7.25 per hour (U.S. Federal Minimum Wage) per student
and $25.00 per hour (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Average Hourly
Earnings-Education) per teacher filling out forms on personal time.

OA	                                 (4.00 hrs x $7.25) x 2500 = $
72,500.00

HST	(0.05 hrs x $7.25 + 1.25 hrs x $25.00) x 2000 = $  63,225.00

CT	(0.05 hrs x $7.25 + 0.25 hrs x $25.00) x   500 = $    3,306.25

EIE	(0.05 hrs x $7.25 + 1.20 hrs x $25.00) x 2000 = $  60,725.00

MIE	(0.05 hrs x $7.25 + 1.20 hrs x $25.00) x 2000 = $  60,725.00

PFE	(1.00 hrs x $7.25 + 1.00 hrs x $25.00) x 2000 = $  64,500.00

         Total hours value = $324,981.25

Note: Based on historical USCGA application data, approximately 2,500
respondents submit the online application annually, but only 2,000 will
complete the application process by having recommenders complete all
required supplemental forms.

13.  Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents
or record keepers.

There is no cost burden to respondents or record keepers associated with
this collection of information.

14.  Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

Cost figured at $14.00 per hour (General Schedule Pay Tables) per USCGA
Admissions staff member and $47.00 per hour (U.S. Military Pay Tables)
per USCGA faculty/staff member.

Development/Management of online application by contractor =
           $25,000

USCGA Admissions staff to prepare/validate data = 2 x $14.00/hr x 400
hrs =  $11,200

USCGA faculty/staff members to review data = 2 x $47.00/hr x 1000 hrs =
     $94,000

Total Cost = 								                 $130,200

15.  Explain the reasons for any changes or adjustments reported in
items 13 or 14.

The change (i.e., decrease) in burden is a PROGRAM  CHANGE.

The decrease in burden hours is due to the discontinuation of CGA-14C,
Coach/Physical Education Instructor Evaluation form.

The decrease in burden cost is due to exclusive use of e-forms for
online submission of all supplemental forms, so no information is
required to be submitted via U.S. mail.

Updates are provided for cost burden associated with this collection of
information.

Overall, this collection of forms is easier for the respondents to
complete and record keepers to process compared to the previous
collection due to the technology employed within the e-forms and online
review of all applicants and supplemental forms by USCGA.

16.  Outline plans for tabulation and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB
approval of the

       information collection, explain the reasons.

The expiration date for OMB approval of this information collection will
be displayed on both the log-in screen for the OA (for applicants) and
on the instructions screen for the recommendation system containing the
supplemental forms (for recommenders) for review prior to any
information being provided to the USCGA.

18.  Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in
Item 19,

       "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,"of OMB
Form 83-I.

USCG does not request an exception to the certification of this
information collection.

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods.

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

1625-0004


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 25393]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09894]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0699; FRL--9945-42-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Magnesium Refining
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Primary Magnesium
Refining (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTT) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
2098.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0536), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2016. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR
32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0699, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change--including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and record-keeping requirements for the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as for the
specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTTTT. This includes
submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic
reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance
with the standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Primary Magnesium Refining
Facilities
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTTTT).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 611 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $62,700 (per year), which includes $1,200 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden hours in
this ICR from the previous ICR because the regulations have not
changed, and are not expected to change, in the next three years. There
is, however, a small adjustment increase in the estimated labor costs
as due to an update in labor rates.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-09894 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1                                INFORMATION
COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

                             United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)

			         Part A of the Supporting Statement

				   (Draft -November 2010)

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) 	Title: 	Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline
Volatility; Reporting Requirements for Parties Which Produce or Import
Gasoline Containing Ethanol, and Reporting Requirements for Parties
Seeking a Testing Exemption (40 CFR 80.27)

			EPA ICR Number 1367.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0178

	1(b) Abstract

	Gasoline volatility, as measured by Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in pounds
per square inch (psi), is controlled in the spring and summer in order
to minimize evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles.  The
standards, 7.8 psi or 9.0 psi, for each state (excluding Alaska and
Hawaii) and the District of Columbia, are at 40 CFR 80.27(a).  The
addition of ethanol to gasoline increases the RVP by about one psi.
Gasoline that contains at least nine volume percent ethanol, and no more
than 10 volume percent ethanol, is subject to a standard that is 1.0 psi
greater.  As an aid to compliance and enforcement, the regulation at 40
CFR 80.27 (d)(3) requires that the product transfer document (PTD) which
accompanies a shipment of gasoline containing ethanol shall contain a
legible and conspicuous statement that the gasoline contains ethanol and
the percentage concentration of ethanol.  This is intended to deter the
mixing within the distribution system, particularly in retail storage
tanks, of gasoline which contains ethanol in the 9-10 percent range with
gasoline that does not contain ethanol in the 9-10 percent range.  Such
mixing would likely result in a gasoline with an ethanol concentration
outside the 9-10 percent range, but with an RVP above the applicable
standard of 7.8 or 9.0 psi.  It is estimated that there are
approximately 2,000 producers and importers (mostly blenders as opposed
to refiners and importers) of gasoline blended with ethanol.  These are
the parties responsible for generating the PTDs.  Parties wishing to
conduct research or emissions certification on gasoline that does not
meet the volatility standard are required to obtain a testing exemption
in accordance with 40 CFR 80.27(e).  The EPA receives approximately two
requests per year for testing exemptions.

	EPA has proposed additional PTD requirements for gasoline containing
ethanol at 75 FR 68044 (November 4, 2010).  Those requirements will be
addressed in a separate ICR.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 211(h) of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations prohibiting the sale or distribution of gasoline whose
volatility, as measured by RVP, exceeds certain standards during the
high ozone season.  The Act and regulations at 40 C.F.R. 80.27 and 80.28
permit gasoline containing 9-10 percent ethanol to have an RVP that is
one psi greater than the standard that would otherwise apply.  Normally,
the gasoline distribution system treats gasoline as a fungible product.
That is, gasolines from numerous sources are mixed together (also known
as commingling) in tanks at terminals and retail outlets.  Therefore,
without the required statement on the PTD, gasoline containing ethanol
in the 9-10 percent range could easily be commingled with gasoline
containing ethanol outside that range.  This could result in gasoline
that exceeds the applicable 7.8 psi or 9.0 psi standard, and not have
ethanol in the 9-10 percent range to qualify for the one psi exemption
allowed by the Act and regulations.  Thus, it is imperative that
gasoline marketers, shippers, and distributors know if a shipment of
gasoline contains ethanol, and in what concentration.  The required
statement on the PTD of gasoline blended with ethanol will significantly
aid industry compliance and EPA’s ability to enforce the volatility
standards.

	Thus, the rule requires that the customary business practice (CBP) PTD
for a shipment of gasoline containing ethanol state that the gasoline
contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of ethanol.  The rule
does not have a recordkeeping requirement.  However, PTDs are usually
retained in the normal course of business for five years.  The PTD is
generated by any party that produces or imports gasoline that contains
ethanol.

	As required by section 211(h) of the Act, the Agency promulgated a
final rule in 1991.  The reporting requirement in 40 C.F.R. 80.27(d)(3)
was promulgated under authority of section 211(h) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(h) and sections 114 and 208 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414 and
7542, and provides:

"Each invoice, loading ticket, bill of lading, delivery ticket and other
document which accompanies the shipment of gasoline containing ethanol
shall contain a legible and conspicuous statement that the gasoline
being shipped contains ethanol and the percentage concentration of
ethanol."

	These regulations provide for the enforcement of the standards for the
maximum RVP that will be allowed during the high ozone portion of the
year, extending from May 1 (suppliers) or June 1 (all other persons)
through September 15.  Regulatory control of volatility stems from a
recognition of the major impact that increases in the RVP of gasoline
have on the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  Consequent
to the excessive emission of VOCs is the formation of ozone in the
ambient air, a major summertime health problem in many urban areas.

     The reporting (actually labeling) requirement is necessary because
the Act gave certain ethanol blends a one pound per square inch (psi)
allowance above the otherwise applicable RVP standard.  The records
regarding the shipment of ethanol blends to a retailer or to any
"midstream" distribution point will assist Agency enforcement officials,
when inspecting those shipments, in identifying those gasoline blends
that qualify for the one psi allowance, and those parties who may be
liable for violations if the blend is not in compliance.  The records
are also necessary to assist regulated parties in avoiding violations
when handling multiple shipments of gasoline during the high ozone
season, and can be used by parties in establishing a legal defense.

	Parties wishing to conduct research or emissions certification on
gasoline that does not meet the volatility standard may obtain a testing
exemption by providing the information specified at 40 CFR 80.27(e) to
EPA.  Thus, if a test facility was inspected by EPA, and gasoline was
found that did not meet the standard, and the facility had an exemption,
there would not be a violation.

     2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency and has practical utility.  The
information contained in the PTDs for gasoline blended with ethanol is
used to identify those gasoline blends that may qualify for the one psi
allowance, as provided by the Act and by the rule.  The required record
also helps prevent the commingling of gasoline containing the required
amount of ethanol necessary to be eligible for the one psi waiver with
gasoline that does not qualify.  Such commingling would usually result
in a violation.  The testing exemption provides flexibility for research
or emissions certification.

	Agency enforcement officers need this information to assist in
identifying violations and violating parties.  There is no recordkeeping
requirement under this rule.  Industry entities, including blenders of
ethanol and gasoline, and distributors of gasoline containing ethanol,
as well as retailers (who ultimately receive the gasoline but have no
recordkeeping requirements under the rule) need the information in order
to prevent violations that can occur from commingling multiple gasoline
shipments during the high ozone season.

3.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a) Nonduplication

	The information collection is not duplicative.  The PTDs are the only
records available to recipients of gasoline that document that ethanol
has been blended into the gasoline.  The reporting requirement for a
testing exemption is the only practical approach.

	3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, a notice was published
in the Federal Register.

	3(c) Consultations

	The general consensus is that the burden is very small.  The
information is generally computer-generated, pre-printed, or hand
stamped on the PTDs.  The rule does not require that the PTDs be
retained.  Only about two requests for testing exemptions are received
annually.

	3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	This labeling activity is the minimum necessary to alert downstream
distributors/marketers that a shipment of gasoline contains ethanol.
The labeling requirement applies only to those producing or importing
gasoline blended with ethanol.  The Agency allows maximum flexibility in
the form of the labeling.  Neither record maintenance nor reporting to
the Agency is required.  No new documents are required since PTDs are
routinely used in the gasoline distribution network.  Testing exemptions
are requested only as necessary.

	3(e) General Guidelines

	The collection is in compliance with OMB guidelines.  To the extent
that some affected companies may be relatively small businesses, their
informational requirements do not change since the requirement is
already the minimal possible in order to give other businesses and EPA
information that is necessary for compliance.

	3(f) Confidentiality

	Information claimed as confidential is handled in accordance with EPA
Freedom of Information Act regulations at 40 CFR 2.

	3(g) Sensitive Questions

       	There are no sensitive questions.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

    	 4(a) Respondents/SIC/NAICS Codes

	The respondents are related to the following major group Standard
Industrialization Classification (SIC) codes:

2869 - Denatured Alcohol Manufacturing

2911 - Petroleum Refineries

4212 - Gasoline Distributors

5171 - Gasoline Bulk Stations and Terminals

5172 - Gasoline Merchant Wholesalers (except bulk stations, terminals)

5541 - Retailers/Wholesale Purchaser-consumers

	The respondents are related to the following major group NAICS codes:

324110 - Petroleum Refineries

325193 - Denatured Alcohol Manufacturing

424710 - Gasoline Bulk Stations and Terminals

424720 - Gasoline Merchant Wholesalers (except bulk stations, terminals)

	4(b) Information Requested

	(i)  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	This ICR covers the reporting/labeling requirement at 40 CFR
80.27(d)(3) for the PTDs for shipments of gasoline containing ethanol.
Ethanol is generally splash-blended into a gasoline tanker truck at a
terminal truck rack at ten volume percent.  The blender creates a
statement on the PTD that the product contains ten percent ethanol.  The
same is required for a refiner who produces gasoline blended with
ethanol at a refinery and an importer of gasoline blended with ethanol.
Each distributor/transferor transfers this PTD on to the next transferor
and ultimately to the retail level.  Many refiners/blenders/importers
already included this information on the PTDs prior to the EPA
regulatory requirement (also, some states already required this
information), and for them this requirement represented no new burden.
Even where it did represent a new burden, in just about all cases the
information is now encoded automatically by computer or otherwise
routinely stamped or entered on the PTD, resulting in an extremely small
reporting burden.  There is no burden for transferors, as they already
had to transfer a PTD with each shipment of gasoline as a customary
business practice (CBP).  This rule has no recordkeeping requirement.
Parties needing a testing exemption must submit the information
specified at 40 CFR 80.27(e).

	(ii)  Respondent Activities

	The following are required:

Read and comprehend the regulations.

Train personnel to meet the requirements.

Develop the information for the PTD and/or testing exemption.

Gather and organize the information.

Review the information, perform quality assurance, and take corrective
action, if necessary, to meet the regulatory requirements.

Enter the information onto the PTD or submit the request for a testing
exemption to EPA.

5.         THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION

    	METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a) Agency Activities

	The following are required:

Develop a thorough understanding of the regulatory requirements.

Convey the requirements and respond to inquiries in a clear manner.

Provide access to the regulations and guidance documents.

Timely process requests for testing exemptions.

Monitor compliance with the PTD requirement.

	5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	The information collection, to the maximum extent practicable, uses
appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data
quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public.  Ethanol
blender/distributors generally use computer-printed language stating
that the product contains ethanol and the amount (usually10 percent).
This information is printed on PTDs, and in many cases the information
itself was already printed prior to the rule.  EPA also allows the use
of coded statements to reduce the space the statement requires on the
PTD.  EPA may examine these records during investigations regarding
gasoline exceeding the applicable RVP standard.  Requests for a testing
exemption are routinely reviewed and granted by EPA.

	5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

	The information collection reduces to the extent practicable and
appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or
for the Agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601(6)), the use of such
techniques as: (1) establishing differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to those who are to respond; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements; or (3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of
information, or any part thereof.

	The approach of this information collection holds burdens to the
irreducible minimum consistent with obtaining the required compliance
levels.  The labeling requirement applies only to those entities that
produce or import gasoline blended with ethanol.  It enables those
parties, as well as retail level entities, to comply with the law.
However, retail entities have no requirement to make or maintain
records.  Therefore, the smallest entities have no burden under this
collection and for those small blenders and importers who do have a
burden, the burden is minimal.  The information required is not in any
prescribed format, allowing for maximum flexibility in how to print the
information, including the use of short codes, and does not necessitate
any new records.  Therefore, no further flexibility is needed.

	5(d) Collection Schedule

     There is no reporting requirement to EPA and there is no required
maintenance period.  There is no collection schedule; the statement is
added to the CBP transfer document when the blend is produced or
imported.

6.   ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	It is estimated that there are 2,000 producers and importers of
gasoline blended with ethanol.  The vast majority is blended at
terminals.  Some ethanol is blended at a refinery or contained in
imported gasoline

            Based on information received from respondents and from EPA
experience, for most respondents the required information is
automatically computer-generated or preprinted on the PTDs.  This means
the reporting requirement is almost immeasurable for these parties.
Other parties may spend about ten seconds per transaction to stamp or
otherwise enter the information on the PTDs.  The average for all
respondents is estimated to be about one second per transaction.  There
is no recordkeeping requirement.  It is estimated to take four hours to
prepare a request for a testing exemption.

	Based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, (2008 data),  EPA estimates that the hourly cost, including
benefits and other employee costs, for this industry and for the period
of this ICR, to be about $110 per hour for a typical labor mix.

	Almost all gasoline containing ethanol will be shipped by truck.
Assume 95 percent of all gasoline contains ethanol.  If 95 percent of
the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that is consumed annually nationwide
contains ethanol, this comes to 133 billion gallons of gasoline.  If the
average truck shipment is 3,000 gallons of gasoline, then about 44
million truckloads/shipments of gasoline with ethanol are
produced/imported annually.  Thus 44 million PTDs will receive the
required statement on ethanol content annually.

	6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

	For 44 million PTDs (responses), at and average burden of 1 second per
PTD, the annual burden is 12,222 hours, or about six hours for each of
the estimated 2,000 producers and importers.  There is an additional
hour of labor for each of the estimated 100 new producers or importers
annually to implement the requirement, for a net annual burden for
producers and importers of 12,222+100= 12,322 hours.  The two requests
for testing exemptions, at 4 hours each, add 8 hours annually, for an
annual total of 44,000,002 responses and 12,322+8= 12,330 hours.  There
is no burden for transferors and recipients because the transmittal of
PTDs is a customary business practice.

	6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

	For producers and importers of gasoline containing ethanol, 12,222
hours at $110 per hour gives a total of $1,344,420, or about $672 per
respondent (2,000 respondents) annually to generate the required
statement on PTDs.  For the estimated 100 new producers or importers
each year, there is an additional hour of labor for each, $110 per
respondent, to implement the requirement, for a total of $11,000.  Thus,
the total annual cost for producers and importers is
$1,344,420+$11,000=$1,355,420.  For parties wishing a testing exemption,
8 hours at $110 per hour gives a total of $880, or $440 per respondent
(2 respondents).  There are no costs for transferors and recipients.

	There are no Purchased Services Costs.  There are no Annualized Startup
Costs.  There are no Annualized Capital Costs.  Thus, the only non-labor
costs are Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs are for copying and
postage for the two exemption requests annually, and are estimated at
$10 each for a total of $20.

	6(c) Estimating EPA Burden and Cost

     	The labeling activity that is the subject of this ICR imposes no
burden or costs on the

Agency.  The Agency would conduct inspections even without the
requirement but the required information facilitates the investigation
of possible violations.

	6(d) Reasons for Change of Burden

	The use of ethanol in gasoline has increased since the previous ICR
from 60 percent of the market to 95 percent of the market.  Also, the
average shipment size has been reevaluated from 8,500 gallons to 3,000
gallons.  Thus, the estimated annual number of PTDs that will contain
the required language has increased from 10 million in the previous ICR
to 44 million.

	6(e) Burden Statement

	There are no EPA forms on which to place a statement.

B.  COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

	This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used
in this data collection associated with the Gasoline Volatility Rule.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

  PAGE   8


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57109-57111]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0506]

Determination That ATROVENT (Ipatropium Bromide) Inhalation
Solution and 10 Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for
Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that the
11 drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale
for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that
FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it
will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products
as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Pritzlaff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6308, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term

Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments),
which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products
approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain
exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval
contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage
form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of the drug that was
previously approved. Sponsors of ANDAs do not have to repeat the
extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a
new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA
are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is
bioequivalent to the listed drug.
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)),
which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA
publishes this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the
``Orange Book.'' Under FDA regulations, a drug is withdrawn from the
list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or
ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that
the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
    Under Sec.  314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the agency must
determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed
drug may be approved; (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily
withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been
approved; and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination
under 21 CFR Sec.  10.25(a) and Sec.  10.30. Section 314.161(d)
provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from
sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness, the agency will initiate
proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the
ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.
    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in
this document are no longer being marketed. (As requested by the
applicant, FDA withdrew approval of NDA 20-228 for ATROVENT
(ipratropium bromide) Inhalation Solution in the Federal Register of
November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62858).)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Application No.                Drug                  Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 20-228               ATROVENT (ipratropium    Boehringer Ingelheim
                          bromide) Inhalation      Pharmaceuticals,
                          Solution, 0.02%          Inc., 900 Ridgebury
                                                   Rd., P.O. Box 368,
                                                   Ridgefield, CT 06877-
                                                   0368
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 20-306               Fludeoxyglucose F-18 (4- Downstate Clinical PET
                          40 millicuries (mCi)/    Center, Methodist
                          milliliter (mL) and 4-   Medical Center, 112
                          90 mCi/mL) Injection     Crescent Ave.,
                                                   Peoria, IL 61606
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 20-333               AGRYLIN (anagrelide      Shire US Inc., 725
                          hydrochloride (HCl))     Chesterbrook Blvd.,
                          Capsules, equivalent     Wayne, PA 19087-5637
                          to (EQ) 1 milligram
                          (mg) base
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 20-377               CORDARONE (amiodarone    Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
                          HCl) Injection, 50 mg/   P.O. Box 8299,
                          mL                       Philadelphia, PA
                                                   19101-8299
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 20-974               PROZAC (fluoxetine HCl)  Eli Lilly and Co.,
                          Tablets, EQ 10 mg base   Lilly Corporate
                                                   Center, Indianapolis,
                                                   IN 46285
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 50-417               NEOSPORIN (bacitracin    Monarch
                          zinc; neomycin           Pharmaceuticals,
                          sulfate; polymyxin B     Inc., c/o King
                          sulfate) Ophthalmic      Pharmaceuticals,
                          Ointment, 400 units/     Inc., 501 Fifth St.,
                          gram (g); EQ 3.5 mg      Bristol, TN 37620
                          base/g; 10,000 units/g
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 50-461               ANCEF (cefazolin         GlaxoSmithKline, 2301
                          sodium) Injection, 250   Renaissance Blvd.,
                          mg/vial, 500 mg/vial,    King of Prussia, PA
                          and 5 g/vial             19406
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 50-521               CECLOR (cefaclor)        Eli Lilly and Co.
                          Capsules, EQ 250 mg
                          and 500 mg base
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 50-522               CECLOR (cefaclor) Oral   Do.
                          Suspension, EQ 125 mg
                          base/5 mL and EQ 250
                          mg base/5 mL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 50-527               DURICEF (cefadroxil)     Warner Chilcott, Inc.,
                          Oral Suspension, EQ      Rockaway 80 Corporate
                          125 mg base/5 mL         Center, 100
                                                   Enterprise Dr., suite
                                                   280, Rockaway, NJ
                                                   07866
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDA 61-229              POLYSPORIN (bacitracin   Monarch
                          zinc; polymyxin B        Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
                          sulfate) Ophthalmic
                          Ointment, 500 units/g;
                          10,000 units/g
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that the drug products listed in this document were not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the agency will continue to list the drug products listed
in this document in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of
the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' identifies,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs listed in this document are
unaffected by the discontinued

marketing of the products subject to those NDAs. Additional ANDAs that
refer to these products may also be approved by the agency if they
comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA
determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to
meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to
submit such labeling.

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-23035 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1774]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-30882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1088; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-15-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dowty Propellers Propellers

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2013-30882, appearing on pages 78290-
78292, in the issue of Thursday, December 26, 2013, make the following
correction:
    On page 78290, in the first column, the subject heading is
corrected to read as set forth above.

[FR Doc. C1-2013-30882 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 21998-21999]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on December 6, 2007, vol. 72, no. 234, page
68947. The information collected is from airmen and is used to
determine compliance with FAA regulations regarding second-in-command
certification for the operation of aircraft.

DATES: Please submit comments by May 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Certification: Second in Command (SIC) Pilot Type Rating,
Federal Regulation part 61.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0693.
    Forms(s): 8710-1.
    Affected Public: An estimated 3,000 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 6 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 300 hours annually.
    Abstract: The information collected is from airmen and is used to
determine compliance with FAA regulations regarding second-in-command
certification for the operation of aircraft.

ADDRESS: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/
FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
 [FR Doc. E8-8729 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M