[Federal Register: February 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5072-5073]
[DOCID:fr01fe10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-41-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Application

January 22, 2010.
    Take notice that on January 12, 2010, Paiute Pipeline Company
(Paiute), P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197, filed in Docket
No. CP10-41-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for
authorization to construct and operate certain facilities to enhance
the capacity of the South Tahoe lateral in Douglas and Washoe Counties,
Nevada, as more fully set forth in the application which is open to the
public for inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERCOnline Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Paiute proposes to (1) construct and operate approximately 0.9
miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline looping on its South Tahoe lateral
in Douglas County; (2) modify two delivery points on the South Tahoe
lateral in Douglas County so as to increase the delivery capacity at
both points; and (3) modify its Wadsworth Pressure Limiting Station in
Washoe County. Paiute states that the proposed new facilities would
allow Paiute to provide approximately 2,265 Dekatherm equivalent of
natural gas per day in new firm transportation capacity in Nevada.
Paiute also states that the proposed facilities would cost
approximately $2,387,000 to construct. Paiute further states that it
proposes to charge the two new shippers, Southwest Gas Corporation-
Northern California and Southwest Gas Corporation-Northern Nevada, an
incremental transportation rate for firm transportation service, as
stated in Paiute's FERC Gas Tariff, Rate Schedule FT-1.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Edward C. McMurtrie, Vice President/General Manager, Paiute Pipeline
Company, P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197, or by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing

comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests
only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: February 12, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1973 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18472-18473]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07752]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-2736.
    Extension: Rule 154; SEC File No. 270-438, OMB Control No. 3235-
0495.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The federal securities laws generally prohibit an issuer,
underwriter, or dealer from delivering a security for sale unless a
prospectus meeting certain requirements accompanies or precedes the
security. Rule 154 (17 CFR 230.154) under the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a) (the ``Securities Act'') permits, under certain
circumstances, delivery of a single prospectus to investors who
purchase securities from the same issuer and share the same address
(``householding'') to satisfy the applicable prospectus delivery
requirements.\1\ The purpose of rule 154 is to reduce the amount of
duplicative prospectuses delivered to investors sharing the same
address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Securities Act requires the delivery of prospectuses to
investors who buy securities from an issuer or from underwriters or
dealers who participate in a registered distribution of securities.
See Securities Act sections 2(a)(10), 4(1), 4(3), 5(b) [15 U.S.C.
77b(a)(10), 77d(1), 77d(3), 77e(b); see also rule 174 under the
Securities Act (17 CFR 230.174) (regarding the prospectus delivery
obligation of dealers); rule 15c2-8 under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.15c2-8) (prospectus delivery obligations of
brokers and dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under rule 154, a prospectus is considered delivered to all
investors at a shared address, for purposes of the federal securities
laws, if the person relying on the rule delivers the prospectus to the
shared address, addresses the prospectus to the investors as a group or
to each of the investors individually, and the investors consent to the
delivery of a single prospectus. The rule applies to prospectuses and
prospectus supplements. Currently, the rule permits householding of all
prospectuses by an issuer, underwriter, or dealer relying on the rule
if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the
issuer, underwriter, or dealer has obtained from each investor written
or implied consent to householding.\2\ The rule requires issuers,
underwriters, or dealers that wish to household prospectuses with
implied consent to send a notice to each investor stating that the
investors in the household will receive one prospectus in the future
unless the investors provide contrary instructions. In addition, at
least once a year, issuers, underwriters, or dealers relying on rule
154 for the householding of prospectuses relating to open-end
management investment companies that are registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``mutual funds'') must explain to
investors who have provided written or implied consent how they can
revoke their consent.\3\ Preparing and sending the notice and the
annual explanation of the right to revoke are collections of
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rule 154 permits the householding of prospectuses that are
delivered electronically to investors only if delivery is made to a
shared electronic address and the investors give written consent to
householding. Implied consent is not permitted in such a situation.
See rule 154(b)(4).
    \3\ See Rule 154(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule allows issuers, underwriters, or dealers to household
prospectuses if certain conditions are met. Among the conditions with
which a person relying on the rule must comply are providing notice to
each investor that only one prospectus will be sent to the household

and, in the case of issuers that are mutual funds, providing to each
investor who consents to householding an annual explanation of the
right to revoke consent to the delivery of a single prospectus to
multiple investors sharing an address. The purpose of the notice and
annual explanation requirements of the rule is to ensure that investors
who wish to receive individual copies of prospectuses are able to do
so.
    Although rule 154 is not limited to mutual funds, the Commission
believes that it is used mainly by mutual funds and by broker-dealers
that deliver prospectuses for mutual funds. The Commission is unable to
estimate the number of issuers other than mutual funds that rely on the
rule.
    The Commission estimates that, as of March 2015, there are
approximately 1,640 mutual funds, approximately 410 of which engage in
direct marketing and therefore deliver their own prospectuses. Of the
approximately 410 mutual funds that engage in direct marketing, the
Commission estimates that approximately half of these mutual funds
(205) (i) do not send the implied consent notice requirement because
they obtain affirmative written consent to household prospectuses in
the fund's account opening documentation; or (ii) do not take advantage
of the householding provision because of electronic delivery options
which lessen the economic and operational benefits of rule 154 when
compared with the costs of compliance. Therefore, the Commission
estimates that each direct-marketed fund will spend an average of 20
hours per year complying with the notice requirement of the rule, for a
total of 4,100 hours. Of the 410 mutual funds that engage in direct
marketing, the Commission estimates that approximately seventy-five
percent (308) of these funds will each spend 1 hour complying with the
annual explanation of the right to revoke requirement of the rule, for
a total of 308 hours. The Commission estimates that there are
approximately 200 broker-dealers that carry customer accounts and,
therefore, may be required to deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The
Commission estimates that each affected broker-dealer will spend, on
average, approximately 20 hours complying with the notice requirement
of the rule, for a total of 4,000 hours. Each broker-dealer will also
spend 1 hour complying with the annual explanation of the right to
revoke requirement, for a total of 200 hours. Therefore, the total
number of respondents for rule 154 is 507 (307 mutual funds plus 200
broker-dealers), and the estimated total hour burden is approximately
8,608 hours (4,408 hours for mutual funds plus 4,200 hours for broker-
dealers).
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 31, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07752 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16100-16101]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0816; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANM-27]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Establishment
of Class E Airspace; Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Federal Register on March 3, 2022. The rule modified the Class D and
Class E surface airspace, established Class E airspace designated as an
extension to Class D & E surface areas, Class E airspace beginning at
700 feet above the surface, removed navigational aids (NAVAIDs) from
text headers, and made administrative changes to the legal descriptions
at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR. The Final Rule
did not explain the purposeful removal of Class E airspace beginning at
1,200 feet above the surface, nor did it properly exclude the Sunnyhill
Airport cut-out. This action adds verbiage explaining the removal of
Class E airspace beginning at 1,200 feet above the surface, and
corrects the legal description for the newly established Class E
airspace designated as an extension to Class D & E surface areas to
properly exclude Sunnyhill Airport, OR.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 19, 2022. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (87 FR
11955; March 3, 2022) for Docket FAA-2021-0816, which modified the
Class D and Class E surface airspace, established Class E airspace
designated as an extension to Class D & E surface areas, modified the
Class E airspace beginning at 700 feet above the surface, removed
navigational aids (NAVAIDs) from text headers, and made administrative
changes to the legal descriptions at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport,
North Bend, OR. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that the
removal of Class E airspace beginning at 1,200 feet above the surface
at the airport was not disclosed. This airspace was removed as it is
not needed at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport. The Bend E6 en route
domestic airspace area beginning at 1,200 feet above the surface
provides sufficient containment to accommodate arriving instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at 1,500 feet and higher above the
surface and departing IFR operations from the point they reach 1,200
feet above the surface. Additionally, it was discovered after
publication of the Final Rule that the legal description for the Class
E airspace designated as an extension to Class D & E surface areas did
not properly exclude the Sunnyhill Airport, OR cut-out. This action
corrects those errors.
    Class D, Class E2, Class E4, and Class E5 airspace designations are
published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Amendment
of Class D and Class E airspace, and Establishment of Class E airspace;
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, North Bend, OR, published in the
Federal Register of March 3, 2022 (87 FR 11955), FR Doc. 2022-04326, is
corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 11957, in the first column, beginning on line 8, the legal
description for ANM OR E4 is corrected to read:

ANM OR E4 North Bend, OR [New]

Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]25'01'' N, long. 124[deg]14'49'' W)
Sunnyhill Airport, OR
    (Lat. 43[deg]28'59'' N, long. 124[deg]12'10'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.6 miles
north and 3.5 miles south of the 092[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport Class D 4.2-
mile radius to 11.7 miles east of the airport, excluding that
airspace within a 0.9-mile radius of Sunnyhill Airport, and within
2.0 miles southeast and 2.1 miles northwest of the 242[deg]

bearing from the airport, extending from the Class D 4.2-mile radius
to 9.4 miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 11, 2022.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-05620 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:52 PM
To: Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palmieri, Rosario A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dravis, Samantha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gunasekara, Mandy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bolen, Brittany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owens, Nicole<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Conclusion of EO 12866 Review: EPA's 2 Notice of Data Availability Actions on Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Extension of Stay (RIN 2060-AT59 and 2060-AT65)

This email serves as notice that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has concluded its review with a finding of consistent with change under Executive Order 12866 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) notice of data availability (NODA) entitled, "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Extension of Stay for Certain Requirements" (RIN 2060-AT59) and NODA entitled, "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Limited Stay of Certain Requirements" (RIN 2060-AT65).

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Adams, Darryl
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:29 PM
To: Aaron Szabo<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: I've uploaded the economics memo into 2060-AT59

Hi Aaron,
If you have questions, please let me know.
Darryl

Darryl Adams
Regulatory Management Division
Office of Policy, U.S. EPA
202 564-6569
Mail Code 1803A, Room 3512D WJC North
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Owens, Nicole<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Summary of Updated Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay

Nicole,

Sorry for not mentioning in my previous email, please also upload the revised version of the Economics Memo into the supplementary documents section as well.

Thank you very much.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Owens, Nicole
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 11:36 AM
To: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palmieri, Rosario A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dravis, Samantha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gunasekara, Mandy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bolen, Brittany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nickerson, William<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Summary of Updated Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay

The clean versions have been uploaded into ROCIS.

Thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 11:12 AM
To: Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palmieri, Rosario A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dravis, Samantha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gunasekara, Mandy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bolen, Brittany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owens, Nicole<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Summary of Updated Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay

Lisa,

Thank you very much. Please upload the clean versions into ROCIS and let me know when that has been completed.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Thompson, Lisa
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 9:02 AM
To: 'Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palmieri, Rosario A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dravis, Samantha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gunasekara, Mandy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bolen, Brittany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owens, Nicole<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Summary of Updated Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay

Hi Aaron,

EPA agrees to accept this comment. Please find attached the final clean versions of RIN 2060-AT59 and RIN 2060-AT65, and RLSO versions showing all the changes made during the review process.

Thanks,
Lisa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:10 PM
To: Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Palmieri, Rosario A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dravis, Samantha<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gunasekara, Mandy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bolen, Brittany<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Owens, Nicole<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Summary of Updated Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay

Attached please find the updated summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 for the EPA draft notice of data availabilities entitled, "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements" and Three-Month Stay (RIN 2060-AT59 and RIN 2060-AT65) and related economics memorandum.

Due to the nominal nature of the comment, if EPA agrees to accept the comment, I believe that we can conclude review early next week (potentially Monday) on the NODAs. With respect to the process, if EPA accepts the comment, then EPA needs only to submit a final clean version and a RLSO version showing all of the changes made during the review process. I will then open ROCIS up for amendment and the clean version can be uploaded.

Thank you very much and please let me know if you have any questions.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:26 AM
To: Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eck, Janet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Miller, Elizabeth<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hambrick, Amy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Branning, Amy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay (RIN 2060-AT59)

Thanks Lisa. Confirming receipt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Thompson, Lisa
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:36 AM
To: 'Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eck, Janet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Miller, Elizabeth<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Amy Hambrick<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Branning, Amy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay (RIN 2060-AT59)

Hi Aaron,

Please find attached EPA's responses to the interagency comments from 10/9/2017.  There are 7 attachments.

 EPA responses to interagency comments
 Updated preamble - RIN 2060-AT59 (clean and RLSO)
 Updated preamble - RIN 2060-AT65 (clean and RLSO)
 Updated economics memo  -  RIN 2060-AT59 (clean and RLSO)

Thanks,
Lisa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 5:37 PM
To: Dunkins, Robin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thompson, Lisa<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cozzie, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tsirigotis, Peter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbreath, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Szabo, Aaron L. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Laity, Jim A. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DeBruhl, Brandon F. EOP/OMB<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rojas, Pablo EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ruggiero, Justin M. EOP/OMB (Intern<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 for EPA Draft Notice of Data Availabilities -- Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements and Three-Month Stay (RIN 2060-AT59)

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 for the EPA draft notice of data availabilities entitled, "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements" and Three-Month Stay (RIN 2060-AT59 and RIN 2060-AT65) and related economics memorandum.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32930]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2299-082]

Turlock Irrigation District; Modesto Irrigation District; Notice
of Environmental Site Review

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2299-082.
    c. Date filed: April 28, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation
District.
    e. Name of Project: Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Tuolumne River
in Tuolumne County, California. The project would occupy federal land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management Sierra Resource Management
Unit.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven Boyd, Director of Water Resources,
Turlock Irrigation District, P.O. Box 949, Turlock, California 95381,
209-883-8364 and Greg Dias, Project Manager, Modesto Irrigation
District, P.O. Box 4060, Modesto, California 95352,<PHONE_NUMBER>
    i. FERC Contact: Adam Beeco,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Environmental Site Review

    The applicants and FERC staff will conduct an Environmental Site
Review of the recreational facilities associated with the project
beginning at 10:00 a.m. on June 17, 2014. The review will consist of
visiting Fleming Meadows Recreation Area, Blue Oaks Recreation Area,
Moccasin Point Recreation Area, and Ward's Ferry Whitewater Boating
Take-Out Facility. All interested individuals, organizations, and
agencies are invited to attend. All participants should meet at the Don
Pedro Recreation Agency Visitor Center located at 10201 Bonds Flat Road
in La Grange, California.
    All participants are responsible for their own transportation to
and around the site. Anyone with questions about the Environmental Site
Review should contact Adam Beeco at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 2, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13353 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61824-61826]
[DOCID:fr01no07-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25173; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-24-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McCauley Propeller Systems Propeller
Models B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/
114HCA-0, and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede three existing airworthiness
directives (ADs) for McCauley Propeller Systems propeller models
B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/114HCA-0,
and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0. Those ADs currently require fluorescent
penetrant inspections (FPI) and eddy current inspections (ECI) of
propeller blades for cracks, and if any crack indications are found,
removing the blade from service. This proposed AD would require the
same initial inspections, but extends the compliance times and
intervals, adds repetitive inspections, and mandates a life limit for
the blades. This proposed AD results from our determination that we
must require repetitive inspections for cracks, and from reports of
blunt leading edges of the propeller blades due to erosion. We are
proposing this AD to detect cracks in the propeller blade that could
cause failure and separation of the propeller blade and loss of control
of the airplane, and to detect blunt leading edges on the propeller
blades, which could cause airplane single engine climb performance
degradation and could result in an increased risk of collision with
terrain.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 31,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact McCauley Propeller Systems, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, KS
67277-7704, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> for the service information
referenced in this AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Janusz, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, KS 67209; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the DOT Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in
any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the
comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business,
labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On July 14, 2003, we issued AD 2003-15-01, Amendment 39-13243 (68
FR 42244, July 17, 2003). That AD applies to the following McCauley
Systems, Inc. propeller assemblies that are installed on, but not
limited to, BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Model 4101
airplanes:
     Hub Model B5JFR36C1101, with Model 114GC series propeller
blades.
     Hub Model C5JFR36C1102, with Model L114GC series propeller
blades.
     Hub Model B5JFR36C1103, with Model 114HC series propeller
blades.
     Hub Model C5JFR36C1104, with Model L114HC series propeller
blades.
    That AD requires a onetime FPI of propeller blade retention areas
for cracks. That AD resulted from a report of a significant crack in a
propeller blade shank and two reports of cracks in the hubs of the same
propeller model. That condition, if not corrected, could result in a
failure of the propeller blade or hub and loss of control of the
airplane.
    On August 18, 2003, we issued AD 2003-17-10, Amendment 39-13285 (68
FR 52337, September 3, 2003). That AD superseded AD 2003-15-01 to
require initial and repetitive FPI or eddy current inspections (ECI) of
the propeller blades, and for hubs that have been overhauled one or
more times. That AD resulted from reports of four additional propeller
blade cracks. Based on examination of these cracked propeller blades,
we established a repetitive inspection interval.
    On November 10, 2004, we issued AD 2004-23-16, Amendment 39-13871
(67 FR 67807, November 22, 2004). That AD requires a onetime eddy-
current inspection of the propeller hub for cracks, and if necessary,
replacing the propeller assembly. That AD resulted from three reports
of cracked hubs. The compliance times for the onetime hub inspections
in 2004-23-16 are more restrictive than the compliance times required
in AD 2003-17-10.
    On July 18, 2006, we issued AD 2006-15-13, Amendment 39-14693 (71
FR 42258, July 26, 2006). That AD requires a onetime fluorescent
penetrant inspection (FPI) and eddy current inspection (ECI) of
propeller blades for cracks, and if cracked, removing the blade from
service. That AD resulted from a report of two propeller blades on the
same propeller assembly, found cracked during propeller overhaul. That
condition, if not corrected, could result in failure and separation of
the propeller blade and loss of control of the airplane.

Actions Since We Issued AD 2006-15-13

    Since we issued AD 2006-15-13, we have reduced the crack inspection
interval. We also received reports of blunt leading edges of propeller
blades due to erosion of some propeller blades on Jetstream 41
airplanes. Based on the reports we received from inspections performed
after we issued AD 2006-15-13, McCauley Propeller Systems issued a new
alert service bulletin to address the inspections for cracks.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of McCauley
Propeller Systems Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB255, dated January 8,
2007, which describes procedures for inspecting the propeller blades
for cracks.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. For that reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require for certain blades, an FPI and ECI of propeller
blades for cracks based on hours time-in-service after the effective
date of the AD, and if any crack indications are found, removal from
service. Also, the proposed AD would require inspecting for blunt
leading edges of the propeller blades while inspecting them for cracks,
and if necessary, dressing any erosion before returning the blades to
service. The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using
the service information described previously.

Interim Action

    These actions are interim actions and we may take further
rulemaking actions in the future.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 22 propeller
assemblies installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it
would take about 47 work-hours per propeller to perform the required
actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $260 per propeller. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be
$88,440.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13243 (68 FR

42244, July 17, 2003), Amendment 39-13285 (68 FR 52337, September 3,
2003), and Amendment 39-14693 (71 FR 42258, July 26, 2006), and by
adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows:

McCauley Propeller Systems: Docket No. FAA-2006-25173; Directorate
Identifier 2006-NE-24-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by December 31,
2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-15-01, Amendment 39-13243; AD
2003-17-10, Amendment 39-13285; and 2006-15-13, Amendment 39-14693.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McCauley Propeller Systems propeller
models B5JFR36C1101/114GCA-0, C5JFR36C1102/L114GCA-0, B5JFR36C1103/
114HCA-0, and C5JFR36C1104/L114HCA-0. These propellers are installed
on BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Model 4100 and 4101
series airplanes (Jetstream 41).

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from our determination that we must require
repetitive inspections for cracks, and from reports of blunt leading
edges of the propeller blades due to erosion. We are issuing this AD
to detect cracks in the propeller blade that could cause failure and
separation of the propeller blade and loss of control of the
airplane, and to detect blunt leading edges on the propeller blades,
which could cause airplane single engine climb performance
degradation and could result in an increased risk of collision with
terrain.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.

Life Limit

    (f) Remove all 114GCA-0, L114GCA-0, 114HCA-0, and L114HCA-0
propeller blades upon reaching 10,000 operating hours time-since-
new.

Initial Propeller Blade Inspection

    (g) Perform an initial fluorescent penetrant inspection and eddy
current inspection of propeller blades. Use the Equipment Required
and Accomplishment Instructions of McCauley Propellers Alert Service
Bulletin ASB255, dated January 8, 2007, and the following compliance
schedule:

                      Table 1.--Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Then Inspect the Propeller
         If the Propeller Blade                       Blade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Has more than 2,400 operating hours  Within 100 operating hours time-
 time-since-new (TSN), time-since-last    in-service (TIS) after the
 inspection (TSLI), or time-since-        effective date of this AD.
 overhaul (TSO).
(2) Has 2,400 or fewer operating hours   Upon reaching 2,500 operating
 TSN, TSLI, or TSO.                       hours TSN, TSLI, or TSO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propeller Blades Found Cracked

    (h) Remove from service propeller blades found with any crack
indications.

Repetitive Propeller Blade Inspection

    (i) Thereafter, inspect the propeller blades within 2,500 operating
hours TSLI or TSO. Use the Equipment Required and Accomplishment
Instructions of McCauley Propellers Alert Service Bulletin ASB255,
dated January 8, 2007.

Inspection for Blunt Erosion on the Leading Edge of the Propeller Blade

    (j) Every time the propeller is removed for the inspection for
cracks, inspect the blade for erosion and, if necessary, repair the
erosion. The McCauley Propeller Systems Blade Overhaul Manual No., BOM,
100, contains information on inspecting and repairing erosion on the
propeller blade.

Reporting Requirements

    (k) Within 10 calendar days of the inspection, use the Reporting
Form for Service Bulletin 255 to report all inspection findings to
McCauley Propeller Systems, P.O. Box 7704, Wichita, KS 67277-7704,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (l) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
reporting requirements and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (m) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, has the
authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Special Flight Permits

    (n) Under 39.23, we are limiting the availability of special flight
permits for this AD. Special flight permits are available only if:
    (1) The operator has not seen signs of external oil leakage from
the hub; and
    (2) The operator has not observed abnormal propeller vibration or
abnormal engine vibration; and
    (3) The operator has not observed any other abnormal operation from
the propeller; and
    (4) The operator has not made earlier reports of abnormal propeller
vibration, abnormal engine vibration, or other abnormal propeller
operations that have not been addressed.

Related Information

    (o) Contact Jeff Janusz, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1801 Airport
Road, Room 100, Wichita, KS 67209; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 24, 2007.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-21493 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9933-9935]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0010]

Notice of Buy America Waiver

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

ACTION: Notice of Buy America Waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides NHTSA's finding with respect to a request
from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) to waive the
requirements of Buy America. NHTSA finds that a non-availability waiver
is appropriate for OHSP to purchase twenty foreign-made motorcycles
using Federal grant funds because there are no suitable motorcycles
produced in the United States for motorcyclist safety training
purposes.

DATES: The effective date of this waiver is March 14, 2016. Written
comments regarding this notice may be submitted to NHTSA and must be
received on or before: March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this waiver
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You

may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, contact Barbara
Sauers, Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NHTSA
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico,
Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail
to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice provides NHTSA's finding that a
waiver of the Buy America requirements, 23 U.S.C. 313, is appropriate
for Michigan's OHSP to purchase twenty motorcycles for motorcyclist
safety training using grant funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and
405(f). Section 402 funds are available for use by state highway safety
programs that, among other things, reduce or prevent injuries and
deaths resulting from speeding motor vehicles, driving while impaired
by alcohol and or drugs, motorcycle accidents, school bus accidents,
and unsafe driving behavior. 23 U.S.C. 402(a). Section 405(f) funds are
available for use by state highway safety programs to implement
effective programs to reduce the number of single and multi-vehicle
crashes involving motorcyclists that, among other things, include
supporting training of motorcyclists and the purchase of motorcycles.
23 U.S.C. 405(f)(1) & (4).
    Buy America provides that NHTSA ``shall not obligate any funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or [Title 23] and administered
by the Department of Transportation, unless steel, iron, and
manufactured products used in such project are produced in the United
States.'' 23 U.S.C. 313. However, NHTSA may waive those requirements
if: ``(1) Their application would be inconsistent with the public
interest; (2) such materials and products are not produced in the
United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of
a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of domestic material will
increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25
percent.'' 23 U.S.C. 313(b); 49 CFR 1.95(f).
    Recently, NHTSA published its finding that a public interest waiver
of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for a manufactured
product whose purchase price is $5,000 or less, excluding a motor
vehicle, when such product is purchased using Federal grant funds
administered under Chapter 4 of Title 23 of the United States Code. See
80 FR 37359 (June 30, 2015). Under this public interest waiver,
therefore, states are no longer required to submit a waiver of Buy
America to NHTSA for items costing $5,000 or less, except for motor
vehicles, when they purchase the item with Federal grant funds.
    Michigan's OHSP seeks both a non-availability waiver--that the
product is not produced in the United States in sufficient quantities--
and a cost waiver--that the purchase of comparable domestic made
motorcycles are 25 percent greater than the cost of foreign made
motorcycles--to purchase twenty motorcycles for motorcyclist training
purposes. It seeks to purchase a combination of the following make,
model and model year motorcycles and unit price: 2016 Suzuki TU250X
($4,399); 2015 Yamaha V-Star 250 ($4,340); 2016 Yamaha TW200 ($4,590);
2015 Honda Grom ($3,199); and 2016 Honda Rebel 250 ($4,190). Michigan
asserts that a diverse training motorcycle fleet makes it easier to
match novice riders to training motorcycles they can ride safely and
comfortably during the training sessions. It notes that the Motorcycle
Safety Foundation's (MSF) level one classroom curriculum includes a
discussion of motorcycle types and styles, and how to choose a
motorcycle that matches a rider's body type and riding experience.
Michigan adds that the two outdoor sessions of its training program are
5 hours each, which is long enough that the student's comfort on the
motorcycle becomes a significant aspect of their training experience.
The total purchase price for all twenty motorcycles ranges from
$63,980-$91,800. This training program is designed to improve traffic
safety by assuring that individuals seeking to obtain a Michigan
motorcycle operator's license are properly trained in basic motorcycle
operation and safety.
    OHSP requires that its training motorcycles meet certain
specifications. The engine displacement must be no more than 250 cubic
centimeters (CC). Michigan, however, is unable to identify any
motorcycles with this specification that meet the Buy America
requirements. OHSP researched motorcycle models made by several
American motorcycle manufacturers: Harley-Davidson, Inc., Victory
Motorcycles, Indian Motorcycles, ATK Motorcycles and Cleveland
CycleWerks. Harley-Davidson produces a 500 CC motorcycle called the
Street 500, with a MSRP of $6,849. Victory Motorcycles and Indian
Motorcycles produce motorcycles with a much heavier and larger engine
displacement than 500 CC, with the lowest MSRP of $12,499 for the
Victory Vegas 8-ball motorcycle and the lowest MSRP of $10,999 for the
Indian Scout. OHSP reached out to ATK Motorcycles, a domestic
manufacturer located in Utah, and determined that ATK Motorcycles are
not currently produced or available for sale. OHSP also found that
Cleveland CycleWerks manufactures motorcycles in China, with minimal
assemblage in the United States.
    Michigan states that its fleet of training motorcycles consists of
motorcycles with less than 500 CC engine displacement and states that
its practice is to use motorcycles with 250 CC engine displacement or
less to enhance safety and minimize risk to participants of the
training course. OHSP was unable to find a motorcycle that meets its
requirements for training motorcycles that also meets the Buy America
requirements. OHSP seeks to use the aforementioned motorcycles for its
2016 motorcycle safety training program because they are smaller
motorcycles with smaller engine displacement (250 CC). These
motorcycles have universal applicability to all rider characteristics.
For example, tall and short individuals can train with these smaller
motorcycles; whereas, shorter individuals would have difficulty riding
taller motorcycles, which, in general, have larger engine displacement.
Moreover, motorcycles with smaller engine displacement are lighter and
have less engine power that permit novice riders, or those with smaller
physical stature, the ability to maneuver the motorcycles with limited
risk of the motorcycle overpowering the riders causing injury. While
some larger motorcycles (500 CC) are suitable for some motorcycle
riders to train on, these motorcycles may overwhelm novice riders with
their engine power and weight. Motorcycles with larger engine
displacements do not have the universal applicability of the 250 CC
motorcycles and would limit the effectiveness of Michigan's training
courses. The smaller motorcycles will enable Michigan to continue to
have effective motorcycle safety training courses that further the goal
of section 402 and 405 to reduce motorcycle crashes and develop
effective motorcyclist training for all its constituents.
    NHTSA is unaware of any other domestic motorcycle manufacturers
than Harley-Davidson, Victory, and Indian. As these manufacturers do
not sell a motorcycle that meets the requirements for Michigan's
motorcycle safety training purposes, a Buy America

waiver is appropriate. NHTSA invites public comment on this conclusion.
    In light of the above discussion, and pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
313(b)(3), NHTSA finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver from
the Buy America requirements to Michigan to purchase twenty motorcycles
for training purposes. Michigan seeks both a non-availability waiver--
where the product is not produced in the United States in sufficient
quantities--and a cost basis waiver--where the purchase of a comparable
domestic made motorcycle is 25 percent greater than the cost of foreign
a made motorcycle. We have construed this as a non-availability waiver
request because a cost basis waiver is not appropriate when there is no
comparable domestic product against which to compare the price of the
foreign product. Here, no domestic manufacturer produces a motorcycle
with 250 CC engine displacement. As smaller engine displacement is
common for training purposes and no American manufacturer produces
motorcycles with this specification, a non-availability waiver is
appropriate.
    This waiver applies to Michigan and all other States seeking to use
section 402 and 405 funds to purchase the make and model motorcycles
above and for the purposes mentioned herein. This waiver will continue
through fiscal year 2016 and will allow the purchase of these items as
required for Michigan's OHSP and its motorcyclist training programs.
Accordingly, this waiver will expire at the conclusion of fiscal year
2016 (September 30, 2016). In accordance with the provisions of Section
117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy of Users Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-
244, 122 Stat. 1572), NHTSA is providing this notice as its finding
that a waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for
certain Suzuki, Yamaha and Honda motorcycles.
    Written comments on this finding may be submitted through any of
the methods discussed above. NHTSA may reconsider these findings, if
through comment, it learns of and can confirm the existence of a
comparable domestically made product to the items granted a waiver.
    This finding should not be construed as an endorsement or approval
of any products by NHTSA or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The
United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2016 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-04211 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27978-27979]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2503-167]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available
for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and water.
    b. Project No.: 2503-167.
    c. Date Filed: February 1, 2018 and supplemented June 4, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Lake Keowee in Oconee County, South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Kelvin Reagan, Manager, Lake Services South,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church Street, ECQ12, Charlotte,
North Carolina 28202; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Joy Kurtz at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please

send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2503-167.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to grant the City of Walhalla permission to use project lands
and water within the project boundary to construct and operate a raw
water intake on Lake Keowee in order to meet demands for public
drinking water. Construction activities within the project boundary
would include installation of an intake line outfitted with a dual tee
screen system and air burst line, installation of a floating dock
extending over the intake line, placement of rip rap along the stream
bank and intake line, and installation of a stormwater outfall. The
through-slot velocity at the intake screen will not exceed 0.5 feet per
second. The raw water line would leave the project boundary and lead to
a water treatment plant, which is not yet constructed. Once
constructed, the facility would withdrawal up to 6.75 million gallons
per day (mgd) from Lake Keowee.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS''; ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to the non-project use application. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12878 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8817-8818]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0066 formerly CGD11-08-004]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sacramento River, Sacramento,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the owner, California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to conduct electrical
maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position during the maintenance period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on February 25, 2008,
through 5 a.m. on February 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard
District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Eleventh Coast
Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary
deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Caltrans requested a temporary change to the
operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over the Sacramento
River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower Drawbridge navigation span provides
a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-
navigation position. The draw opens on signal as required by 33 CFR
117.5. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position,
from 6 a.m. on February 25, 2008 through 5 a.m. on February 29, 2008,
to allow Caltrans to relocate the drawspan's

electrical transformer and switchboard. This temporary deviation has
been coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat
cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period.
No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
    In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 4
hours advance notice.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
C.E. Bone,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-2857 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44239-44240]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. SR-OCC-2015-02; Release No. 81629]

Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the The Options Clearing
Corporation For an Order Granting the Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Concerning a Proposed Capital Plan for Raising Additional Capital That
Would Support the Options Clearing Corporation's Function as a
Systemically Important Financial Market Utility; Corrected Order
Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review

September 14, 2017.
    On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (``Approval
Order'') approving the plan of the Options Clearing Corporation's
(``OCC'') for raising additional capital (the ``Plan'') to support its
function as a systemically important financial market utility.\1\ BOX
Options Exchange LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc., Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC, and Susquehanna International Group, LLP
(collectively ``petitioners'') \2\ filed a

petition for review of the Approval Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit''), challenging
the Commission's Approval Order as inconsistent with the Exchange Act
and lacking in the reasoned decisionmaking required by the
Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exchange Act Release No. 77112, File No. SR-OCC-2015-02.
    \2\ BATS Global Markets, Inc., was initially a petitioner, but
later withdrew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The D.C. Circuit concluded that the Approval Order did not
``represent the kind of reasoned decisionmaking required by either the
Exchange Act or the Administrative Procedure Act,'' and therefore
remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings.\3\ In so
ruling, the court did not reach the merits of any of petitioners'
arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with the substantive
requirements of the Exchange Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 443 (D.C.
Cir. 2017).
    \4\ Id. at 446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court specifically decided not to vacate the Approval Order
prior to remand, instead leaving the Plan in place and remanding ``to
give the SEC an opportunity to properly evaluate the Plan.'' \5\ The
D.C. Circuit's mandate, which issued on August 18, 2017, returned the
matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, to facilitate the Commission's further review of the
Plan, It is Ordered, that by October 14, 2017, OCC may file any
additional statements or information that it considers relevant to the
Commission's reconsideration, including but not limited to information
OCC's board of directors considered in approving the Plan.
    Furthermore, the Commission is providing other parties and persons
thirty days to respond to any additional statements OCC may submit.
    Accordingly, It is Ordered, that by November 13, 2017, any party or
other person may file any additional statement, which may include
statements previously submitted or otherwise available, or any new
information such party or other person considers relevant.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2015-02. The
Commission will post submissions on the Commission's Internet Web site
as they are received. Submissions received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. If a party or person wishes to submit information for
the Commission to consider that is confidential, Rule 83 of the
Commission Rules of Practice provides a procedure by which persons
submitting information may request that it be withheld when requested
under the Freedom of Information Act.\6\ Any party or person seeking to
submit information in this matter should make sure that their request
complies with procedures specified by Rule 83. An explanation of the
rule is available on the Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/foia/conftreat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.83.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20081 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P