[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55519-55523]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67774; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Existing NASD IM-2110-3 as New FINRA Rule
5270 (Front Running of Block Transactions) With Changes in the
Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

September 4, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On May 17, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/

k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt
existing NASD Interpretive Material (``IM'') 2110-3 (Front Running
Policy) as proposed FINRA Rule 5270 to amend the existing Front Running
Policy in several ways to broaden its scope and provide further clarity
into activities that FINRA believes are inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 6, 2012.\3\ The Commission
received two comment letters on the proposed rule change,\4\ and a
response to comments from FINRA.\5\ On August 30, 2012, FINRA submitted
Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\6\ This order approves the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67079 (May 30,
2012), 77 FR 33522 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Ryan K. Bakhtiari, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar
Association (``PIABA''), dated June 26, 2012 (``PIABA Letter''); and
Sean Davy, Managing Director, Corporate Credit Markets Division,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated July 9, 2012 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Brant K. Brown, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August
29, 2012 (``FINRA Response'').
    \6\ In that amendment, FINRA clarified that the proposed rule
would not apply to orders or transactions involving government
securities. FINRA noted, however, that actions for similar front-
running conduct occurring in the exempted securities markets,
including the government securities market, continue to be covered
by FINRA Rule 2010. In the amendment, FINRA also clarified that the
10,000 share language in proposed Supplementary Material .03 refers
to equity securities. Because this amendment is technical in nature,
it is not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As part of the process of developing a consolidated rulebook,\7\
FINRA proposed to adopt existing NASD IM-2110-3 (``Front Running
Policy'') as proposed FINRA Rule 5270 with the changes described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The FINRA rulebook consists of: (1) FINRA Rules; (2) NASD
Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated NYSE
Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules are
referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD Rules
generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE Rules
apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of the
NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members,
unless such rules have a more limited application by their terms.
See FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation
Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Current Front Running Policy

    The current Front Running Policy states that it shall be considered
conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for a
member or a person associated with a member, for an account in which
such member or person associated with a member has an interest or
exercises investment discretion or for certain customer accounts, to
buy or sell an option or security future when the member or person
associated with a member has material, non-public market information
concerning an imminent block transaction \8\ in the underlying security
or when the customer has been provided such material, non-public market
information by the member of any person associated with a member.\9\
Similarly, the same prohibition applies for a member or any person
associated with a member with respect to an order to buy or sell an
underlying security when such member or person associated with a member
causing such order to be executed has material, non-public market
information concerning an imminent block transaction in an option or a
security future overlying that security, or when a customer has been
provided such material, non-public market information by the member or
any person associated with a member; prior to the time information
concerning the block transaction has been made publicly available.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NASD IM-2110-3 states that ``[a] transaction involving
10,000 shares or more of an underlying security, or options or
security futures covering such number of shares is generally deemed
to be a block transaction, although a transaction of less than
10,000 shares could be considered a block transaction in appropriate
cases.''
    \9\ See NASD IM-2110-3(a).
    \10\ See NASD IM-2110-3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Front Running Policy also prohibits providing material, non-
public market information concerning an imminent block transaction to
customers who then trade on the basis of the information. The Front
Running Policy is limited to transactions in equity securities and
options that are required to be reported on a last sale reporting
system and to any transaction involving a security future, regardless
of whether the transaction is reported. The prohibitions apply until
the information concerning the block transaction has been made publicly
available.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASD IM-2110-3 (``when [the information] has been
disseminated via the tape or high speed communications line of one
of those systems, a similar system of a national securities exchange
under Section 6 of the Act, an alternative trading system under
Regulation ATS, or by a third-party news wire service'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Front Running Policy includes exceptions for
``transactions executed by member participants in automatic execution
systems in those instances where participants must accept automatic
executions'' as well as situations where a member receives a customer's
block order relating to both an option or security future and the
underlying security and the member, in furtherance of facilitating the
customer's block order, positions the other side of one or both
components of the order. In the latter case, a member is still
prohibited from covering any resulting proprietary position by entering
an offsetting order until information concerning the block transaction
has been made publicly available.

B. Proposed Changes to Front Running Policy

1. Expansion of the Front Running Policy
    FINRA proposes to expand the Front Running Policy to apply to all
securities and other financial instruments and contracts (in addition
to the existing options and security futures) that overlay the security
that is the subject of an imminent block transaction and that have a
value that is materially related to, or otherwise acts as a substitute
for, the underlying security. Specifically, FINRA proposes to expand
the Front Running Policy to cover trading in an option, derivative,
security-based swap, or other financial instrument overlying a security
that is the subject of an imminent block transaction if the value of
the underlying security is materially related to, or otherwise acts as
a substitute for, such security, as well as any contract that is the
functional economic equivalent of a position in such security
(``related financial instrument'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FINRA notes that the proposed rule is not intended to
provide an exhaustive list of prohibited trading activity. See
Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would also expand the Front Running Policy when the
imminent block transaction involves a related financial instrument, and
prevent trading in the underlying security. The proposed rule change
also would extend the Front Running Policy to include explicitly
trading in the same security or related financial instrument that is
the subject of an imminent block transaction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The trading restrictions imposed by the current Front
Running Policy apply until information about the imminent customer
block transaction ``has been made publicly available,'' which the
rule defines as having been disseminated to the public in trade
reporting data. The proposed rule change generally retains this
standard for determining when information has become publicly
available. However, FINRA proposes to expand the rule to include
related financial instruments that may not result in publicly
available trading information being made available. Accordingly,
FINRA also proposes that the prohibitions in the rule be in place
until the material, non-public market information is either publicly
available or ``has otherwise become stale or obsolete.'' Whether
information has become stale or obsolete will depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances involved, including specific
information the member has regarding the transaction, but could
include factors such as the amount of time that has passed since the
member learned of the block transaction, subsequent trading activity
in the security, or a significant change in market conditions.

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

2. Amended Exceptions to the Front Running Policy
    The proposed rule change would replace several existing provisions
in the Front Running Policy with proposed Supplementary Material to
FINRA Rule 5270. FINRA proposes to replace the existing exceptions in
the Front Running Policy for certain transactions in automatic
execution systems and for positioning the other side of certain orders
when a member receives a customer's block order relating to both an
option and the underlying security or both a security future and the
underlying security. The new Supplementary Material identifies types of
transactions that are permitted. Specifically, under the proposed
Supplementary Material, there would be three broad categories of
permitted transactions: (1) Transactions that the member can
demonstrate are unrelated to the customer block order; (2) transactions
that are undertaken to fulfill or facilitate the execution of the
customer block order; or (3) transactions that are executed, in whole
or in part, on a national securities exchange and comply with the
marketplace rules of that exchange. These three categories of permitted
transactions are discussed below.
    First, with respect to transactions that are unrelated to the
customer block order, Supplementary Material .04(a) would allow members
to engage in such transactions provided that the member can demonstrate
that the transactions are unrelated to the material, non-public market
information received in connection with the customer order. The
Supplementary Material would include a list of potentially permitted
transactions as examples of transactions that, depending upon the
circumstances, may be unrelated to the customer block order. These
types of transactions could include transactions where the member has
effective information barriers established to prevent internal
disclosure of customer order information,\14\ transactions in the
security that is the subject of the customer block order that are
related to a prior customer order in that security, transactions to
correct bona fide errors, and transactions to offset odd-lot orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ According to FINRA, in addition to more traditional
information barriers, such as those in place to prevent
communication between trading units, this provision could also
include the use of automated systems (e.g., trades through a ``black
box'') where the orders placed into the automated system are handled
without the knowledge of a person associated with the member who may
be trading in the same security. However, a person associated with a
member who places an order into a ``black box'' or other automated
system, or otherwise has knowledge of the order or the ability to
access information in the system, may not then trade in the same
security or a related financial instrument solely because the order
ultimately was being handled by the automated system rather than by
the person. Traders who have no knowledge of the order, due to the
presence of an information barrier or otherwise, could continue to
trade in the security or a related financial instrument. See Notice,
supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to transactions undertaken to fulfill or
facilitate the execution of the customer block order, proposed
Supplementary Material .04(b) would specify that Front Running Policy
does not preclude transactions undertaken for the purpose of
fulfilling, or facilitating the execution of, a customer's block
order.\15\ According to FINRA, firms are permitted to trade ahead of a
customer's block order when the purpose of such trading is to fulfill
the customer order and when the customer has authorized such trading,
including that the firm has disclosed to the customer that it may trade
ahead of, or alongside of, the customer's order. FINRA proposes,
however, that when engaging in trading activity that could affect the
market for the security that is the subject of the customer block
order, the member must minimize any potential disadvantage or harm in
the execution of the customer's order, must not place the member's
financial interests ahead of those of its customer, and must obtain the
customer's consent to such trading activity. The Supplementary Material
would provide that a member may obtain consent through affirmative
written consent or through means of a negative consent letter.\16\ In
addition, a member may provide clear and comprehensive oral disclosure
to, and obtain consent from, the customer on an order-by-order basis,
provided the member documents who provided the consent and such consent
evidences the customer's understanding of the terms and conditions for
handling the customer's order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ According to FINRA, these transactions may include, for
example, hedging or other positioning activity undertaken in
connection with the handling of the customer order. See Notice,
supra note 3.
    \16\ The negative consent letter must clearly disclose to the
customer the terms and conditions for handling the customer's
orders, and if the customer does not object, then the member may
reasonably conclude that the customer has consented and may rely on
the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, proposed Supplementary Material .04(c) would state that
the prohibitions in the Front Running Policy shall not apply if the
member's trading activity is undertaken in compliance with the
marketplace rules of a national securities exchange and at least one
leg of the trading activity is executed on that exchange.
3. Other Proposed Changes
    FINRA proposes to adopt proposed Supplementary Material .05 to
state that the front running of any customer order, not just imminent
block transactions, that places the financial interests of the member
ahead of those of its customer or the misuse of knowledge of an
imminent customer order may violate other FINRA rules, including FINRA
Rules 2010 and 5320, or the federal securities laws.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Although ``not held'' orders are not subject to the
restrictions in FINRA Rule 5320, front running a ``not held'' order
that is not of block size may nonetheless violate FINRA Rule 2010.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63895 (February 11, 2011),
76 FR 9386 (February 17, 2011). If the ``not held'' order is of
block size, the proposed rule change would apply to trading activity
ahead of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As initially proposed, FINRA would announce the implementation date
of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no
later than 90 days following Commission approval, with the
implementation date occurring no later than 90 days following
publication of that Regulatory Notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FINRA Response, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comment Letters and FINRA Response

    The Commission received one comment letter in support of the
proposed rule change,\19\ and one comment letter requesting revisions
and clarifications to the proposed rule change.\20\ As noted above,
FINRA responded to the comments in its response dated August 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See PIABA Letter, supra note 4.
    \20\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated its belief that the extension of the Front
Running Policy to cover any securities and financial instruments (not
just option contracts and futures) was a logical approach and would
better protect investors.\21\ The commenter expressed concern with the
exceptions provided in the Supplementary Material, and stated that
FINRA should closely monitor the

exceptions to ensure member firms are not using them as loopholes to
engage in prohibited activities. In its response, FINRA stated that it
intends to examine firms for compliance with, and fully enforce, the
proposed rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See PIABA Letter.
    \22\ See FINRA Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other commenter raised three substantive issues with the
proposal.\23\ First, the commenter stated that the proposed rule change
contained a flaw in that the barriers to the resumption of trading in
the applicable security or related financial instrument--that the
information concerning the block transaction has been made publicly
available or has otherwise become stale or obsolete--could interfere
with a broker-dealers' risk management activity, which could create
problems in providing liquidity to the market.\24\ The commenter
requested clarity on what serves as the trigger for lifting trading
restrictions and stated that trading restrictions should be lifted once
the risk of a transaction has been transferred from the customer
through the execution of the order.\25\ According to the commenter, in
the context of a block transaction where a member executes as a
principal, the member provides liquidity to the market and is assuming
the risks of the transaction. While executing a block transaction in an
agency capacity, a member cannot trade ahead of its customer because
the execution of the transaction eliminates the opportunity to do so.
In certain situations where a type of security is not subject to prompt
last sale reporting requirements, the commenter stated that the ``stale
or obsolete'' threshold proposed by FINRA could prevent a dealer from
performing necessary risk management activities while providing no
additional benefit to the customer. Accordingly, the commenter
requested confirmation that the execution of a block transaction by the
member as principal or agent will be deemed to render the non-public
information stale and obsolete for the purposes of front-running the
customer, and permit the broker-dealer to transact in the security or
related financial instrument, even if the applicable customer-related
transaction has not become public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \24\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that the ``stale or obsolete'' standard was
intended to supplement, not replace, the existing dissemination
standard.\26\ FINRA noted that the trading restrictions in proposed
FINRA Rule 5270 are linked to actual reporting and dissemination rather
than by invoking the ``stale or obsolete'' standard when transactions
are subject to prompt reporting requirements and the transaction
reports are disseminated. Where there is no reporting and dissemination
regime in place for the security or financial instrument, FINRA agreed
with the commenter that, once the customer's order is executed and the
risk of the transaction has transferred from the customer to the firm,
there would be no trading restrictions imposed by proposed FINRA Rule
5270.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Under NASD IM-2110-3, information regarding a block
transaction is considered publicly available ``when it has been
disseminated via the tape or high speed communications line of one
of those systems, a similar system of a national securities exchange
under Section 6 of the Act, an alternative trading system under
Regulation ATS, or by a third-party news wire service.''
    \27\ See FINRA Response at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the commenter requested additional clarification on whether
the negative consent letter described in proposed Supplementary
Material .04 would satisfy and be consistent with the ``duty to refrain
and disclose'' described in NASD Notice to Members 05-51 (``NTM 05-
51'') and FINRA Rule 5320.\28\ Additionally, the commenter requested
clarity on whether the duty to refrain and disclose described in NTM
05-51 \29\ arises on the basis of the same analysis as the obligations
under proposed FINRA Rule 5270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FINRA Rule 5320 (Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of
Customer Orders) generally prohibits a member that accepts and holds
a customer order in an equity security without immediately executing
the order from trading that security on the same side of the market
for its own account at a price that would satisfy the customer
order, unless it immediately thereafter executes the customer order
up to the size and at the same or better price at which it traded
for its own account.
    \29\ NTM 05-51 addresses members' obligations involving large,
potentially market-moving orders received from a customer, such as
VWAPs, institutional orders, and basket transactions. It states
that, when a member receives such an order, it must ``(1) refrain
from any conduct that could disadvantage or harm the execution of
the customer's order or place the member's financial interests ahead
of those of its customer's and (2) if applicable, disclose in
writing to the customer that the member intends to engage in hedging
and other positioning activity that could affect the market for the
security that is the subject of the transaction.'' It further states
that the disclosure must be in the form of an affirmative consent
letter, but the disclosure need not be on a transaction-by-
transaction basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA agreed that, to the extent possible,
proposed Supplementary Material .04 should be read consistently with
NTM 05-51 and the obligations set out in FINRA Rule 5320.\30\ FINRA
stated that the proposed Supplementary Material was intended to
acknowledge FINRA's previous guidance and the disclosure and consent
provision in proposed Supplementary Material .04 mirrors FINRA Rule
5320. Moreover, FINRA stated that the duties set out in NTM 05-51 arise
from the same concerns that FINRA Rule 5270 is designed to address.
FINRA affirmed that proposal encapsulates the obligations established
in NTM 05-51 with the difference noted by SIFMA: the disclosure
obligation in proposed Supplementary Material .04 can be in the form of
negative consent or, provided certain criteria are met, oral consent,
which is not permitted by the duty to refrain and disclose as set out
in NTM 05-51. FINRA further noted that, in addition to complying with
the disclosure obligation in proposed Supplementary Material .04, the
member must minimize any potential disadvantage to the customer or harm
in the execution of the customer's order, and the member must not place
its financial interests ahead of those of its customer. FINRA stated
that, provided a member meets all of the criteria in proposed
Supplementary Material .04, that member would have fulfilled its duty
to refrain and disclose as set out in the Notice to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See FINRA Response at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter requested a 180-day implementation period
following publication of the applicable Regulatory Notice announcing
the Commission's approval of the proposal, rather than a 90-day
implementation period, because members will need to make additional
technology and system modifications to comply with the rule.\31\ FINRA
responded that it would extend the implementation date to within 180
days following publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing the
Commission's approval of the rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SIFMA Letter at 4.
    \32\ See FINRA Response at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the comment letters, and the
FINRA Response, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association
\33\ and, in particular, the requirements 15A(b)(6) of the Act.\34\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is intended to clarify the types of front
running trading activity that FINRA believes are inconsistent with just
and equitable principles of trade while also ensuring that members may
continue to engage in transactions that do not present the risk of
abusive trading practices that the rule is intended to prevent. The
Commission finds that expanding the rule beyond options and security
futures could enhance the protection of investors by further
prohibiting the potential misuse of information from customer orders.
Expanding the front running prohibition is reasonably designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and better protect investors and the
public interest, while protecting imminent block transactions.
    Moreover, the proposed rule change also would include three
exceptions to the Front Running Policy: (1) Transactions that the
member can demonstrate are unrelated to the customer block order; (2)
transactions that are undertaken to fulfill or facilitate the execution
of the customer block order; and (3) transactions that are executed, in
whole or in part, on a national securities exchange and comply with the
marketplace rules of that exchange. The Commission finds that these
exceptions should not unnecessarily restrict legitimate trading
activities of members and are consistent with just and equitable
principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public
interest, and should not result in fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices. Specifically, transactions that the member can demonstrate
are unrelated to the customer block order do not present the potential
for abusive trading practices that can disadvantage a customer's order
in violation of the rule, since such transactions would not be using
the information from the customer's order. Moreover, transactions that
are undertaken to fulfill or facilitate the execution of the customer
block order similarly do not present the potential for abuse, as such
transactions would be seeking to ensure the execution of a customer
block order. Finally, permitting transactions that are executed, in
whole or in part, on a national securities exchange and comply with the
marketplace rules of that exchange would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system,\35\ as it would help ensure that members would not unknowingly
violate FINRA rules when such members rely on the rules of a particular
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\36\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2012-025), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22139 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


10 31 January 2003 For the case studies presented at proposal, EPA conducted species specific analyses of I& E on a facility specific basis. For its new regional studies, EPA is evaluating species groups comprised of species with similar life histories. Groups are based on family groups or groups used by NMFS for landings data. For example, windowpane flounder, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder are grouped together as " flounders." For the regional studies, EPA evaluated I& E rates for such species groups and developed a regional total I& E estimate by summing results for each group. An exception was made for species of exceptionally high commercial or recreational value ( e. g., striped bass).

Such species were evaluated as single species.

Aggregation of species into groups of similar species facilitated parameterization of the fisheries models used by EPA to evaluate facility I& E monitoring data. As noted by many commenters and by EPA in the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document, life history data are very limited for many of the species that are impinged and entrained. As a result, there are many data gaps for individual species. To overcome this limitation, in its new studies EPA used the available life history data for closely related species to construct a single representative life history for a given species group. For previously completed case studies, EPA used the speciesspecific life history information that was previously developed and then aggregated I& E results for the species within a given group to obtain a group estimate. Appendix 1 provides tables of all of the life history data and data sources used by EPA for the regional analyses presented in the February 2003 notice of data availability ( NODA).


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44869-44870]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2017-67]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; BNSF
Railway Company

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in

the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or
its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0761
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room Wl2-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations. gov, as described in the
system ofrecords notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://ww\v.dot.gov/privacv.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room Wl2-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0761
    Petitioner: BNSF Railway Company
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Part 21; Sec. Sec.  45.23(b),
6l.l13(a) and (b), 9I.7(a), 9l.103(b), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.215,
91.203(a) and (b), 9l.405(a), 9l.407(a), 91.409(a), 91.417(a) and (b)
of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner, a Class I freight
railroad, is seeking an exemption pursuant to Section 2210 of the FAA
Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, to commercia lly operate
small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) beyond visual line of sight
(BVLOS) over BNSF owned or controlled land in support of activities
described in Section2210, paragraph (b). The inspection of railroad
infrastructure and operations involving repair, construction,
maintenance, or protection of covered facilities will occur during both
day and night.
[FR Doc. 2017-20498 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17092]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06699]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9908-63-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving
Superfund Site (Site) located in Whitehouse, Florida, from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), have determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year
reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Rusty Kestle, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA
30303-8909.
     Hand Delivery: 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-
8909. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 61
Forsyth St. SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960; or the local document
repository at the West Regional Jacksonville Public Library, 1425
Chaffee Rd S., Jacksonville, FL 32221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8909,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Superfund Site without prior
Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial
revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our
reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of
Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no
adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further
action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse
comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and
it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public
comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice
of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on
this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-06699 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Lowerbound Upperbound 1 Alabama $ 58.0 100% $ 58.0 276,723 3,906 6,056 196,411 478,115 $ 0.12 2 Alaska 4,020 0 0 2,853 6,873 3 Arizona $ 18.4 100% $ 18.4 59,328 1,239 1,921 42,110 103,018 $ 0.18 4 Arkansas $ 25.0 100% $ 25.0 290,102 1,684 2,610 205,907 498,156 $ 0.05 5 California 716,681 0 0 508,683 1,225,364 6 Colorado 29,929 0 0 21,243 51,172 7 Connecticut $ 98.5 33% $ 32.5 74,924 2,189 3,394 53,179 130,895 $ 0.25 8 Delaware $ 56.1 50% $ 28.1 16,940 1,889 2,929 12,024 31,372 $ 0.89 9 Dist of Columbia 2,111 0 0 1,498 3,609 10 Florida 58,269 0 0 41,358 99,627 11 Georgia 110,654 0 0 78,540 189,194 12 Guam 437 0 0 310 747 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 64 13 Hawaii 791 0 0 561 1,352 14 Idaho $ 66.2 100% $ 66.2 5,078 4,458 6,912 3,604 14,367 $ 4.61 15 Illinois $ 39.0 100% $ 39.0 370,783 2,626 4,072 263,173 637,305 $ 0.06 16 Indiana 426,579 0 0 302,775 729,354 17 Iowa $ 206.0 100% $ 206.0 44,875 13,872 21,509 31,851 94,417 $ 2.18 18 Kansas $ 55.5 100% $ 55.5 46,949 3,737 5,795 33,323 85,038 $ 0.65 19 Kentucky 205,175 0 0 145,628 350,803 20 Louisiana 150,171 0 0 106,588 256,759 21 Maine $ 394.0 50% $ 197.0 5,374 13,266 20,569 3,814 26,106 $ 7.55 22 Maryland $ 137.7 33% $ 45.4 10,563 3,060 4,745 7,497 21,963 $ 2.07 23 Massachusetts $ 5,468.0 33% $ 1,804.4 61,862 121,514 188,404 43,908 260,729 $ 6.92 24 Michigan $ 63.1 100% $ 63.1 426,643 4,249 6,588 302,821 734,883 $ 0.09 25 Minnesota $ 280.7 33% $ 92.6 62,162 6,238 9,672 44,121 114,238 $ 0.81 26 Mississippi 36,471 0 0 25,886 62,357 27 Missouri $ 346.0 33% $ 114.2 65,546 7,689 11,922 46,523 121,874 $ 0.94 28 Montana 6,464 0 0 4,588 11,052 29 Navajo Nation 186 0 0 132 318 30 Nebraska 26,286 0 0 18,657 44,943 31 Nevada 5,605 0 0 3,978 9,583 32 New Hampshire 12,290 0 0 8,723 21,013 33 New Jersey $ 410.7 100% $ 410.7 389,617 27,654 42,877 276,541 701,423 $ 0.59 34 New Mexico 7,407 0 0 5,257 12,664 35 New York $ 3,643.0 33% $ 1,202.2 181,732 80,957 125,522 128,989 413,961 $ 2.90 36 North Carolina $ 585.0 100% $ 585.0 85,809 39,395 61,081 60,905 196,952 $ 2.97 37 North Dakota $ 12.0 33% $ 4.0 3,526 267 413 2,503 6,369 $ 0.62 38 Ohio $ 835.8 50% $ 417.9 703,652 28,142 43,633 499,435 1,238,975 $ 0.34 39 Oklahoma $ 59.5 100% $ 59.5 35,426 4,007 6,212 25,145 65,680 $ 0.91 40 Oregon 48,460 0 0 34,396 82,856 41 Pennsylvania $ 1,529.8 100% $ 1,529.8 313,677 103,016 159,723 222,640 667,687 $ 2.29 42 Puerto Rico 98,146 0 0 69,662 167,808 43 Rhode Island $ 239.6 100% $ 239.6 9,327 16,135 25,017 6,620 36,523 $ 6.56 44 South Carolina 155,578 0 0 110,426 266,004 45 South Dakota 1,256 0 0 891 2,147 46 Tennessee $ 127.0 100% $ 127.0 54,438 8,552 13,260 38,639 103,983 $ 1.22 47 Texas 663,506 0 0 470,941 1,134,447 48 Trust Territories 418 0 0 297 715 49 Utah 88,641 0 0 62,915 151,556 50 Vermont $ 83.0 25% $ 20.8 4,420 1,397 2,167 3,137 9,339 $ 2.22 51 Virgin Islands 1,990 0 0 1,412 3,402 52 Virginia $ 5.6 100% $ 5.6 89,402 377 585 63,455 153,338 $ 0.04 53 Washington 77,450 0 0 54,972 132,422 54 West Virginia 43,072 0 0 30,571 73,643 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 65 55 Wisconsin $ 73.8 50% $ 36.9 163,043 2,485 3,853 115,724 281,936 $ 0.13 56 Wyoming 1,836 0 0 1,303 3,139 Column totals = $ 14,917 $ 7,484 6,831,800 504,000 781,440 4,849,046 12,323,566 $ 0.61 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 66 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Source state revenues: Dangerous Goods Advisory Council ( DGAC), " Biennial Survey of State Hazardous Materials Transportation Fees", Dec 2002, ' http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ brs01/ national. pdf ( b) *** Portions assigned by OSW according to count of haz material categories associated with each instance of " HW" ( hazardous waste) in the DGAC survey reference.

( c) ** Source LQG+ TSDF tons shipped: USEPA Office of Solid Waste ( OSW) 2001 " National Analysis: Biennial Report",

http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ brs01/ national. pdf ( d) **** Source SQG tons shipped: SQG lower and upper bound tons estimated proportionate to state by state LQG tons, relative to national total range for SQGs of 504,000 to 781,440 tons ( source: Dynamac Corp memo to OSW, page 4, 01 Feb 1999).

( e) ***** Source Column G multiplier factor: The RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report ( BR) discontinued presenting wastewater data in 1997 ( i. e. 1995 was the last data year that the BR reported wastewaters); consequently, OSW EMRAD estimated 2001 wastewaters shipped, by ratio proportionate to total hazardous waste shipments from the 1995 BR, as follows:

! 1995 RCRA haz WW+ NWW shipments = 10,675,806 ( 1995 BR, Exhibit 3.1, page 3 2)

! 1995 RCRA haz NWW shipments = 6,243,980 ( 1997 BR, Exhibit B. 3, page B 4)

! 1995 RCRA haz WW shipments = 4,431,826 ( by subtraction 10,765,806  6,243,980)

! Implied WW: to: NWW ratio multiplier = ( 4,431,826 WW) / ( 6,243,980 NWW) = 0.7098 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 67 IV. B2b Estimate of Fees Charged by 12 States for Blank RCRA Manifests The next table presents an estimate of $ 1.16 to $ 2.44 million/ year in fees charged by 12 states for blank RCRA manifests ( constituting 41% of annual manifests), representing 15% to 33% of the $ 7.5 million/ year in hazardous waste transportation fees assessed by 27 states ( estimated in the prior table). These 12 states are a subset of the 23 states which print blank RCRA manifests. The blank manifest fees charged by the 12 states range from $ 0.17 to $ 3.00 per manifest, averaging $ 1.17 per manifest.

In comparison, the second table below presents OSW's independent estimate of $ 0.48 to $ 1.95 million/ year for actual printing costs to the 23 states which print blank RCRA manifests ( constituting 69% of annual national manifests). OSW's estimate of the annual printing cost to the 23 states is less than the estimated fees charged for blank manifests by the 12 states, which indicates that some states probably charge fees in excess of manifest form printing costs ( i. e. in excess of cost recovery).

In terms of potential regulatory impact, the fees currently charged by 12 states for blank manifests are not necessarily eliminated by the revised manifest final rule, because affected states may change the way they assess hazardous waste transportation fees, to offset the lost opportunity of selling blank RCRA manifest forms. 12 States:

Estimate of State Government Annual Revenues From Sale of Blank RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifests Item State A State manifest fee data source* B C ( B / 5.1) D ( B / 2.4) E ( A x C) F ( A x D)

State Gov't Fees for Blank RCRA Manifests ($/ manifest)* Annual Tons RCRA Haz Waste Shipped LQGs+ SQGs + TSDFs ( NWW+ WW)** OSW Estimate of Annual RCRA Haz Waste Manifests*** OSW Estimate of Annual State Revenues From Sale of Blank RCRA Manfiests Lower bound ( if 5.1 tons/ load) Upper bound ( if 2.4 tons/ load) Lower bound Upper bound 1 Alabama 1991 478,115 94,397 197,476 $ 0 $ 0 2 Alaska 1991 6,873 1,357 2,839 $ 0 $ 0 3 Arizona 1991 103,018 20,339 42,549 $ 0 $ 0 4 Arkansas $ 2.00 1991 498,156 98,354 205,753 $ 196,708 $ 411,507 5 California $ 0.29 2004 1,225,364 241,931 506,112 $ 70,341 $ 147,152 6 Colorado 1991 51,172 10,103 21,136 $ 0 $ 0 7 Connecticut $ 0.50 2004 130,895 25,843 54,063 $ 12,922 $ 27,032 8 Delaware $ 0.52 2004 31,372 6,194 12,958 $ 3,221 $ 6,738 9 Dist of Columbia 1991 3,609 713 1,491 $ 0 $ 0 10 Florida 1991 99,627 19,670 41,149 $ 0 $ 0 11 Georgia 1991 189,194 37,354 78,143 $ 0 $ 0 12 Guam 1991 747 148 309 $ 0 $ 0 13 Hawaii 1991 1,352 267 559 $ 0 $ 0 14 Idaho 1991 14,367 2,837 5,934 $ 0 $ 0 15 Illinois $ 3.00 2003 637,305 125,827 263,226 $ 377,481 $ 789,678 16 Indiana 2004 729,354 144,001 301,245 $ 0 $ 0 17 Iowa 1991 94,417 18,641 38,997 $ 0 $ 0 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 68 18 Kansas 1991 85,038 16,790 35,123 $ 0 $ 0 19 Kentucky 1991 350,803 69,261 144,892 $ 0 $ 0 20 Louisiana**** $ 2.75 2004 256,759 50,693 106,049 $ 139,407**** $ 291,635****

21 Maine 2004 26,106 5,154 10,783 $ 0 $ 0 22 Maryland $ 0.25 2004 21,963 4,336 9,071 $ 1,084 $ 2,268 23 Massachusetts 1991 260,729 51,477 107,689 $ 0 $ 0 24 Michigan $ 1.08 2003 734,883 145,092 303,528 $ 156,700 $ 327,811 25 Minnesota 2004 114,238 22,555 47,184 $ 0 $ 0 26 Mississippi 1991 62,357 12,312 25,755 $ 0 $ 0 27 Missouri $ 0.60 1991 121,874 24,062 50,338 $ 14,437 $ 30,203 28 Montana 1991 11,052 2,182 4,565 $ 0 $ 0 29 Navajo Nation 1991 318 63 131 $ 0 $ 0 30 Nebraska 1991 44,943 8,873 18,563 $ 0 $ 0 31 Nevada 1991 9,583 1,892 3,958 $ 0 $ 0 32 New Hampshire $ 0.17 2004 21,013 4,149 8,679 $ 705 $ 1,475 33 New Jersey $ 1.00 2004 701,423 138,486 289,709 $ 138,486 $ 289,709 34 New Mexico 1991 12,664 2,500 5,231 $ 0 $ 0 35 New York 2004 413,961 81,731 170,978 $ 0 $ 0 36 North Carolina 1991 196,952 38,885 81,347 $ 0 $ 0 37 North Dakota 1991 6,369 1,257 2,630 $ 0 $ 0 38 Ohio 1991 1,238,975 244,618 511,734 $ 0 $ 0 39 Oklahoma 1991 65,680 12,968 27,128 $ 0 $ 0 40 Oregon 1991 82,856 16,359 34,222 $ 0 $ 0 41 Pennsylvania $ 0.40 2004 667,687 131,826 275,775 $ 52,730 $ 110,310 42 Puerto Rico 1991 167,808 33,131 69,310 $ 0 $ 0 43 Rhode Island 1991 36,523 7,211 15,085 $ 0 $ 0 44 South Carolina 1991 266,004 52,519 109,867 $ 0 $ 0 45 South Dakota 1991 2,147 424 887 $ 0 $ 0 46 Tennessee 1991 103,983 20,530 42,948 $ 0 $ 0 47 Texas 1991 1,134,447 223,981 468,560 $ 0 $ 0 48 Trust Territories 1991 715 141 295 $ 0 $ 0 49 Utah 1991 151,556 29,923 62,597 $ 0 $ 0 50 Vermont 1991 9,339 1,844 3,857 $ 0 $ 0 51 Virgin Islands 1991 3,402 672 1,405 $ 0 $ 0 52 Virginia 1991 153,338 30,275 63,333 $ 0 $ 0 53 Washington 1991 132,422 26,145 54,694 $ 0 $ 0 54 West Virginia 1991 73,643 14,540 30,417 $ 0 $ 0 55 Wisconsin 1991 281,936 55,664 116,448 $ 0 $ 0 56 Wyoming 1991 3,139 620 1,297 $ 0 $ 0 Column totals = 12,324,000 2,433,000 5,090,000 $ 1,164,000 $ 2,436,000 Subtotals for printing fee states = 5,049,000 ( 41%) 997,000 ( 41%) 2,085,000 ( 41%) EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 69 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Data sources for State fees for blank RCRA manifests:

! 1991: Table 6, page 28, A State Guide to The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, Information Management Program, Center for Policy Research, National Governor's Association ( http:// www. nga. org), 1991.

! 2003/ 2004: In an effort to update the 1991 reference, OSW ( Rachel White) conducted a March 2004 telephone survey sample of nine states ( CA, CT, DE, LA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY) plus three final rule workgroup states ( IN, NH, PA); and OSW ( Mark Eads) conducted a Nov 2003 internet search for state manifest fee data ( which only produced four data hits for CA, IL,

MI, NJ).

( b) Fees in this table may represent only printing costs, or may exceed the actual printing cost of blank manifest forms ( e. g. NJ charges $ 10/ manifest for processing fee).

( c) States with no numerical value shown for manifest fees, reportedly do not print blank RCRA manifests.

( d) 29 states also charge additional fees for supplying photocopies of completed RCRA manifests ( Table 3, page 9, 1991 NGA report).

( e) ** 2001 tons RCRA hazardous waste shipped from prior table.

( f) *** OSW estimated lower and upper bound annual manifest counts for each state in this table, by dividing the 2001 annual tons shipped in each state, by two alternative estimates of national average shipment load ( i. e. national average tons per waste shipment):

! Lower bound manifest count: 5.1 tons/ load [( 12.324 million tons/ year shipped) / ( 2.433 million manifests/ year)]

! Upper bound manifest count: 2.4 tons/ load [( 12.324 million tons/ year shipped) / ( 5.090 million manifests/ year)]

( g) **** Calibration ($ 192,000/ year) based on OSW's March 2004 phone survey. EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 70 IV. B3 Estimate of State Government Costs for Printing Blank RCRA Manifests The table below presents OSW's independent estimate of $ 0.64 to $ 2.77 million/ year in printing costs for 2.433 to 5.090 million blank RCRA manifests, as well as an estimate of printing costs to the 23 states which print blank RCRA manifests.

23 States:

Estimate of Annual Labor Burden & Printing Costs to State Governments and to Waste Handlers for Printing Blank RCRA Manifests A B C D ( A x B x C)

States Printing Blank RCRA Manifests Annual Burden Quantity Unitized Average Labor Burden or Cost Average Annual National Burden ($ millions/ year)

A. Burden to 23 States Which Print Blank RCRA Manifests:

1. RCRA manifest printing Labor burden 23 states 50 hours/ state $ 36/ hour $ 0.041 Printing cost 69%* x ( 2.433 to 5.090 million annual national manifests) / ( 23 states) =

72,990 to 152,700 annual manifests/ state $ 0.21 to $ 0.52 per manifest** $ 0.353 to $ 1.826 2. RCRA manifest distributing 100 hours/ state $ 36/ hour $ 0.083 Column total = $ 0.48 to $ 1.95 Subtotal state government burden hours = 150 hours/ state 3,450 hours B. Remainder Manifests Not Printed by State Governments:

3. RCRA manifest printing ! 100%  69% manifests = 31% manifests not printed by states ! 31% x ( 2.433 to 5.090 million annual national manifests) = 0.754 to 1.578 million manifests $ 0.21 to $ 0.52 per manifest** $ 0.16 to $ 0.82 National manifest printing & distribution cost = $ 0.64 to $ 2.77 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * OSW estimates that the 23 states which print blank RCRA manifests, account for 69% of all annual national RCRA manifests ( source:

spreadsheet presented elsewhere in this " Economics Background Document").

( b) ** Source: http:// carbonless. net/ pricing. htm; unitized cost based on $ 130.20 for 250 box of 6 part 8.5" x11" pre printed blank forms ($ 0.52/ form), and $ 2,130.07 for 10,000 box of same style forms ($ 0.21/ form). EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 71 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 72 IV. C Estimate of Annual Burden for the RCRA Manifest Special Procedures for Rejected Hazardous Waste Shipments & Non Empty Waste Containers EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 73 IV. C Estimate of Annual Burden for the RCRA Manifest Special Procedures for Rejected Hazardous Waste Shipments & Non Empty Waste Containers The current Federal manifest system does not include explicit procedures for manifesting non empty hazardous waste shipment containers or rejected hazardous waste shipment loads. Because existing Federal RCRA regulatory provisions allow for reporting of " significant discrepancies"

such as differences in waste quantities and waste types, but do not address non empty containers and rejected loads, the incremental burden for the revised regulations concerning these special cases is included in this document as an impact element, relative to the current " states interim policy" regulatory practice baseline, rather than relative to the Federal RCRA manifest regulatory baseline.

For this component of the manifest form revisions, the revised manifest form includes a check box for waste handlers to indicate whether they are originating a non empty container or rejected waste load. In addition, a waste handler may be required to prepare an entirely new ( second) manifest for subsequent shipment of partially rejected loads back to the generator or to an alternate designated TSDF. If the waste handler must prepare a new manifest to replace one ( or more) manifests that had previously accompanied that hazardous waste shipment, the component would require reference to the previous manifest's document number on the new manifest. These procedures would assist in creating a paper trail for waste shipments that require additional management by another facility, thereby strengthening the manifest system's ability to track shipments " cradle to grave". The two types of shipments affected by this component are described below.

Hazardous Waste Irregular Shipments Affected by the Revisions to the RCRA Manifest Form Shipment Type Description Rejected Waste Loads Rejected loads are shipments of hazardous waste that are either totally or partially rejected by the designated TSDF.

Non Empty Waste Containers ( residues) Under 40 CFR 261.7, USEPA defines an " empty" container when:

! All wastes have been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove material from the type of container, and ! The residue in the container is no more than 2.5 centimeters on the bottom of the container, or is no more than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the containers, or is no more than 0.3% by weight of the total capacity of the tank or car. ( This assumes a container larger than 110 gallons in size.)

RCRA regulated hazardous wastes are sometimes delivered to TSDFs in a tank car or tank truck. The waste is pumped out of the tanker, but some unpumpable residue, known as " heel," remains in the tanker. This has led to confusion among States and the regulated community regarding how to deal with container residues in these " non empty"

containers.*

* USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Draft Discussion Paper: " Manifest Regulatory Issues That Require Clarification," March 1991.

OSW believes that many States are currently following an interim policy that requires TSDFs to prepare a new manifest for container residues or shipments that are partially rejected. In addition, State interim policies also require TSDFs to use the original manifest with a continuation sheet to re route a shipment that is fully rejected. Thus, under the final rule special procedures for rejected waste shipments and non empty containers,

TSDFs are not expected to incur incremental paperwork burden for rejected waste shipments and non empty containers, relative to the state EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 74 interim policy baseline. However, for purpose of analytic completeness in estimating economic impact relative to the Federal RCRA baseline, the following table provides an estimate of the magnitude of annual burden associated with these special procedures.

IV. C1 & C2 Full Load Rejections, Partial Load Rejections & Non Empty Containers Estimate of Added Cost to Waste Handlers for Revised Manifest Special Procedure Involving Rejected Waste Shipments & Non Empty Waste Containers ( Note: Impacts in this table are relative to the Federal RCRA regulatory baseline,

not to current " interim policy" practices of state governments)

Waste Handler Category A B1 B2 C1 ( B1x%) C2 ( B2x%) D E1 ( C1xD) E2 ( C2xD) F G1 ( E1xF) G2 ( E2xF)

Universe Count of Hazardous Waste Handler Facilities Annual Count of Hazardous Waste Manifests Annual Count of Haz Waste Manifests Involving Rejected Wastes or Non Empty Containers* Additional Burden per Manifest ( Hours)** Average Annual Additional Burden ( Hours/ year) 2004 Average Hourly Loaded Wage ($/ hour) Average Annual Cost Lowerbound Upperbound Lower ( if 0.5%) Upper ( if 2.5%) Lower Upper Lower Upper Full Load Rejections ( if transporter has not departed facility):

1. LQGs 18,135 1,207,140 2,545,000 6,036 63,625 0.04 241 2,545 $ 53 $ 12,796 $ 134,885 2. SQGs 117,544 929,968 1,934,200 4,650 48,355 186 1,934 $ 9,858 $ 102,513 3. Captive TSDFs 1,723 77,418 152,700 387 3,818 15 153 $ 821 $ 8,093 4. Commercial TSDFs 756 218,592 458,100 1,093 11,453 44 458 $ 2,317 $ 24,279 5. Transporters 414 Manifest count included with other waste handler categories Column sub totals = 138,572 2,433,118 5,090,000 12,166 127,250 487 5,090 $ 25,791 $ 269,770 Rejection of Full Loads When Transport Has Departed, Partial Loads, & Non Empty Containers***

1. LQGs 18,135 1,207,140 2,545,000 6,036 36,625 0.36 2,173 22,905 $ 53 $ 115,161 $ 1,213,965 2. SQGs 117,544 929,968 1,934,200 4,650 48,355 1,674 17,408 $ 88,719 $ 922,613 3. Captive TSDFs 1,723 77,418 152,700 387 3,818 139 1,374 $ 7,386 $ 72,838 4. Commercial TSDFs 756 218,592 458,100 1,093 11,453 393 4,123 $ 20,854 $ 218,514 5. Transporters 414 Manifest count included with other waste handler categories Column sub totals = 138,572 2,433,118 5,090,000 12,166 127,250 4,380 45,810 $ 232,119 $ 2,427,930 Column totals = 24,331 254,500 4,866 50,900 $ 257,911 $ 2,697,700 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 75 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Source for percentage waste load rejections: Section IV. 2. B ( page 31) of USEPA OSW 19 Dec 2000 " Economics Background Document" ( EBD;

http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ gener/ manifest/ pdf/ ebd. pdf ) applied a 3% rejection rate assumption for " problem shipments". However, this table adopts an uncertainty range of 1% to 5% " problem shipments", which is split equally between:

! Full load rejections: 0.5% to 2.5%

! Partial/ non empty rejections: 0.5% to 2.5%

In comparison to the 3% assumption of the Dec 2000 EBD, the 5% upper bound rejection rate applied in this table represents the scenario where the final rule provision of rejection procedures may induce additional rejections, whereas the 1% lower bound in this table represents a scenario of decreased annual rejections, compared to the 3% rejection rate.

( b) ** Source for additional average burden per manifest:

! Rejected full loads ( use original manifest if transporter has not departed facility): 0.04 hours/ manifest from Exhibit D 4 of 19 Dec 2001 EBD ! Rejected partial loads & non empty containers ( requires new second manifest): 0.36 hours/ manifest from Exhibit D 3 of 19 Dec 2001 EBD ( c) **** Although not explicitly defined and itemized in this table, the estimated annual number of second manifests involving rejected partial loads and nonempty containers, also implicitly represents a small portion of second manifests associated with rejection of full loads after the transporter has departed from the TSDF's premises. EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 76 IV. C3 Additional Cost to States for Processing 2nd Manifests for Rejected Partial Loads & Non Empty Containers Estimate # 1 of 2:

Additional Annual Cost to State Governments for Processing New ( Second) RCRA Manifests for Rejected Partial Loads & Non Empty Containers ( Note: The impacts estimated in this table are relative to the Federal RCRA manifest regulatory baseline,

not to the current " interim policy" regulatory practices of state governments)

State Government Burden Activity A B1 B2 C1 ( A x B1) C2 ( A x B2) D E1 ( C1 x D) E2 ( C2 x D)

Average Burden per Manifest ( hours)* Annual Number of New ( Second) RCRA Manifests ( source: prior table) Annual Burden Hours 2004 Average Hourly Loaded Wage ($/ hour) Annual Burden Cost Lower ( if 0.5%) Upper ( if 2.5%) Lower Upper Lower Upper 1. Processing 0.03 12,166 127,250 365 3,820 $ 36 $ 13,140 $ 137,520 2. Reviewing 0.40 4,866 50,900 $ 175,176 $ 1,832,400 3. Recordkeeping 0.03 365 3,820 $ 13,140 $ 137,520 Column totals = 0.46 5,593 58,535 $ 201,350 $ 2,107,300 EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 77 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Data sources for average hours per manifest assumptions:

! Processing: OSW's 19 Dec 2000 " Economics Background Document" ( EBD) in support of OSW's 22 May 2001 RCRA manifest revisions proposed rule ( http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ gener/ manifest/ pdf/ ebd. pdf),

assumed 7,000 hours/ year for the 34 states which collect 76% ( then estimated at 77%) of the 2.433 million RCRA manifests/ year ( 1.849 million/ year), which equates to an average of 0.227 minutes/ manifest ( i. e. 13.6 seconds/ manifest). This table adopts an alternative average of two minutes/ manifest ( i. e. 0.03 hours/ manifest).

! Reviewing: Exhibit 15 ( TSDF " Review discrepancy report" line item) of 19 July 2000 OSW ICR 801.# Supporting Statement ( http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ gener/ manifest/ pdf/ icr. pdf).

! Recordkeeping: OSW's 19 Dec 2000 EBD assumed 300 hours/ year for the 34 states which collect 76% of the 2.433 million RCRA manifests/ year ( 1.849 million/ year), which equates to an average of 0.0097 minutes/ manifest ( i. e. 0.58 seconds/ manifest). This table adopts an alternative average of two minutes/ manifest ( i. e. 0.03 hours/ manifest).

This table does not assign any additional cost to states for purchase of cabinets and storage space, which is a source of cost under estimation in this table, but expected to fall within the overall uncertainty range of aggregate national economic impacts estimated in this document.

( b) Although not itemized in this table, OSW assumes that additional paperwork burden to states associated with new ( second) manifests for rejected full loads after the transporter has departed from the TDSF, fall within the lower: to: upper uncertainty range in this table. EPA Final Rule: Revised RCRA Manifest Form   Economic Analysis 24 Nov 2004 78 Estimate # 2 of 2:

Additional Annual Cost to State Governments for Processing New ( Second) RCRA Manifests for Rejected Partial Loads & Non Empty Containers ( Note: The impacts estimated in this table are relative to the Federal RCRA manifest regulatory baseline,

not to the current " interim policy" regulatory practices of state governments)

State Government Burden Activity A B C1 C2 D1 ( AxBxC1) D2 ( AxBxC2) E F1 ( D1xE) F2 ( D2xE)

Count of States Which Collect RCRA Manifests ( Baseline) Annual Paperwork Burden Hours Per State*

( Baseline) Percentage of Annual RCRA Manifests Involving New Second Manifests ( source: prior table) Incremental Burden Hours for Second Manifests 2004 Average Hourly Loaded Wage ($/ hour)

Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 1. Processing 34 states** 7,000 0.5% 2.5% 1,190 5,950 $ 36 $ 42,840 $ 214,200 2. Reviewing 45 7.6 38 $ 275 $ 1,368 3. Recordkeeping 300 51 255 $ 1,836 $ 9,180 Column totals = 7,345 1,249 6,243 $ 45,000 $ 224,800 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Burden hours source: OSW's 19 Dec 2000 " Economics Background Document" ( EBD) in support of OSW's 22 May 2001 RCRA manifest revisions proposed rule ( http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ gener/ manifest/ pdf/ ebd. pdf).

( b) ** Source: Table 3, page 9 of A State Guide to The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, Information Management Program, Center for Policy Research, National Governor's Association ( http:// www. nga. org), 1991.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36667-36668]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0052]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that by letter dated June 4, 2018, Norfolk
Southern Railway (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2018-0052.
    NS seeks a waiver of compliance from cab signal system requirements
found in 49 CFR 236.566, Locomotive of each train operating in train
stop, train control, or cab signal territory; equipped. Specifically,
NS seeks relief to operate non-equipped locomotives in

the following locations: Operations on the Conemaugh Line, Pittsburg
Division, from control point (CP) Kiski at milepost (MP)-LC 47.8 near
Freeport, PA to CP Pennnear near Pittsburgh, PA at MP-LC 77.9, with an
absolute block to be established in advance of each non-equipped
movement and covering the following operations:
    (a) Work Trains, Wreck Trains and Ballast cleaners to and from
work.
    (b) Engines and rail diesel cars moving to and from shops.
    (c) Engines used in switching and transfer service, with or without
cars, operating at Restricted Speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour.
    NS provides the following justification for relief. First, NS
states that ``relief is in the public interest,'' and is ``important to
maintaining efficient rail operations in the region.'' Second, NS
explains exemptions have been granted for the ``operation of non-
equipped locomotives in cab signal system territory at nearby locations
on the NS and the relief requested'' is a ``consistent extension of
those currently granted exceptions.'' Moreover, NS states this waiver
would update relief previously granted regarding Ex Parte No. 171 by
the Interstate Commerce Commission at 286 I. C. C. 709. Finally, NS
contends ``the requested relief will not have a negative material
impact on safety.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
    Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 13, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dotransportation.gov/privacy. See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-16212 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29323]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11856]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 99 / Thursday, May 22, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0954; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-35]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; St. Paul, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends a typographical error in a final rule
correction published in the Federal Register of May 8, 2014, amending
the geographic coordinates of South St. Paul Municipal Airport-Richard
E. Fleming Field, St. Paul, MN, in Class D airspace.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, May 29, 2014. 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 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 8, 2014, a final rule, correction was published in the
Federal Register (FR 79 26365) Docket No. FAA-2013-0954, correcting the
latitude coordinate of a final rule technical amendment published in
the Federal Register of March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12050), for South St. Paul
Municipal Airport-Richard E. Fleming Field, St. Paul, MN, in Class D
airspace. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the longitude
coordinate (93[deg]01'58'') was added in error along with the edited
latitude coordinate. This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule Correction

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal
Register of May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26365) FR Doc. 2014-09881, the latitude
coordinate in the regulatory text on page 26365, column 2, line 12, is
corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

AGL MN D St. Paul, MN [Corrected]

0
Remove (Lat. 44[deg]51'26'' N., 93[deg]01'58'' W.) and add in its place
(Lat. 44[deg]51'26'' N.)

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 15, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-11856 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23229]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09742]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. CE287; Special Conditions No. 23-227-SC]

Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company Model HA-420 Hondajet,
Fire Extinguishing; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a previously published notice granting
special conditions for the Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 jet
airplane. We are withdrawing Special Condition No. 23-227-SC through
mutual agreement with Honda Aircraft Company.

DATES: This special condition published on September 23, 2008 (73 FR
54675) is withdrawn, effective April 27, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pretz, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816)
329-3239; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 23, 2008, the FAA published Special Condition No. 23-
227-SC for the Honda Aircraft Company new model HA-420. The HA-420 is a
four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew,
lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a
maximum takeoff weight of 9,963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two
GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines mounted above the
wings towards the aft of the airplane.
    On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type
certificate for their new Model HA-420 aircraft. On October 10, 2013,
Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective
application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type
certification basis to amendment 23-62.

Reason for Withdrawal

    The FAA is withdrawing Special Condition No. 23-227-SC because
Honda Aircraft Company elected to revise the model HA-420 certification
basis to amendment 23-62. This amendment contains adequate and
appropriate standards for engine fire extinguishing systems.
    The authority citation for this Special Condition withdrawal is 49
U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR
11.38 and 11.19.

Conclusion

    Withdrawal of this special condition does not preclude the FAA from
issuing another notice on the subject matter in the future or
committing the agency to any future course of action.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April 20, 2015.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09742 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 70210]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending October 22, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0193.
    Date Filed: October 21, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: November 14, 2011.
    Description: Application of GoJet Airlines, LLC (``GOJET'')
requesting an amendment to its certificate authority, to wit a removal
of the restriction on the total number of aircraft GOJET can operate
and/or an increase in the number by fifteen (15) aircraft.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-29123 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87570-87572]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1089]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Recommended Glossary and Educational Outreach To
Support Use of Symbols on Labels and in Labeling of In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices Intended for Professional Use

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on recommended glossary and
educational outreach to support use of symbols on labels and in
labeling of in vitro diagnostic devices intended for professional use.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by February 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you

do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a
written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see ``Written/
Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2013-N-1089 for ``Recommended Glossary and Educational Outreach To
Support Use of Symbols on Labels and in Labeling of In Vitro Diagnostic
Devices Intended for Professional Use.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Recommended Glossary and Educational Outreach To Support Use of Symbols
on Labels and in Labeling of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Intended for
Professional Use--OMB Control Number 0910-0553--Extension

    Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 352), among other things, establishes requirements for
the label or labeling of a medical device to avoid misbranding. Section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262)
establishes requirements that manufacturers of biological products must
submit a license application for FDA review and approval prior to
marketing a biological product for introduction into interstate
commerce.
    In the Federal Register of November 30, 2004 (69 FR 69606), FDA
published a notice of availability of the guidance entitled ``Use of
Symbols on Labels and in Labeling of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices
Intended for Professional Use.'' The document provides guidance for the
voluntary use of selected symbols in place of text in labeling. It
provides the labeling guidance required for: (1) In vitro diagnostic
devices (IVDs), intended for professional use under 21 CFR 809.10,
FDA's labeling requirements for IVDs; and (2) FDA's labeling
requirements for biologics, including IVDs under 21 CFR parts 610 and
660.
    The guidance document recommends that a glossary of terms accompany
each IVD to define the symbols used on that device's labels and/or
labeling. Furthermore, the guidance recommends an educational outreach
effort to enhance the understanding of newly introduced symbols. Both
the glossary and educational outreach information help to ensure that
IVD users have enough general familiarity with the symbols used, as
well as provide a quick reference for available materials, thereby
further ensuring that such labeling satisfies the labeling requirements
under section 502(c) of the FD&C Act and section 351 of the PHS Act.
    The likely respondents for this collection of information are IVD
manufacturers who plan to use the selected symbols in place of text on
the labels and/or labeling of their IVDs.
    The glossary activity is inclusive of both domestic and foreign IVD
manufacturers. FDA receives submissions from approximately 689 IVD
manufacturers annually. The 4-hour estimate for a glossary is based on
the average time necessary for a manufacturer to modify the glossary
for

the specific symbols used in labels or labeling for the IVDs
manufactured.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           Activity                                 Number of      disclosures per    Total annual     Average burden      Total hours
                                                                   respondents       respondent        disclosures     per disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glossary......................................................              689                 1               689                 4             2,756
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: November 30, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29104 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P