[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18250-18251]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61830; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Pricing for Option Orders Routed to Away Markets

April 1, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 25, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ NASDAQ has designated this proposal as establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge, which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Rule 7050 governing pricing for NASDAQ
members using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility
for executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
Specifically, NOM proposes to expand the list of options that will be
assessed routing fees of $0.30 per contract for customer orders and
$0.55 per contract for Firm and Market Maker orders that are routed
from NOM to NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx''). The proposal also
includes a technical change to properly alphabetize the symbol ``BAC''
in the rule text. NASDAQ will make the proposed rule change effective
for transactions settling on or after April 1, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify Rule 7050 governing the fees assessed
for options orders entered into NOM but routed to and executed on
NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx''). Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to
expand the number of options to which certain routing fees apply to
reflect the expansion of the fee schedule for adding and removing
liquidity on the Phlx.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-Phlx-2010-47 (March 22, 2010). For a description of
the Phlx's current fee schedule for adding and removing liquidity,
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61684 (March 10, 2010), 75
FR 13189 (March 18, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ currently assesses a $0.30 per contract routing fee for
customer orders, and a $0.55 per contract routing fee for Firm and
Market Maker orders routed from NOM to Phlx for options that are
subject to fees and rebates for adding and removing liquidity as
described in the Phlx fee schedule. To reflect the additions Phlx is
making to its fee schedule, NASDAQ proposes to add the following
options to the table set forth in Rule 7050(4): Alcoa, Inc. (``AA'');
American International Group, Inc. (``AIG''); Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc. (``AMD''); AMR Corporation (``AMR''); Caterpillar, Inc. (``CAT'');
Cisco Systems, Inc. (``CSCO''); Ford Motor Company (``F''); Direxion
Daily Financial Bull 3X Shares (``FAS''); Direxion Daily Financial Bear
3X Shares (``FAZ''); SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''); Intel Corporation
(``INTC''); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (``JPM''), Las Vegas Sands Corp.
(``LVS''); MGM Mirage (``MGM''); Micron Technology, Inc. (``MU'');
Newmont Mining Corporation (``NEM''); Palm, Inc. (``PALM''); Pfizer,
Inc. (``PFE''); Potash Corp./Saskatchewan, Inc. (``POT''); SanDisk
Corporation (``SNDK''); AT&T, Inc. (``T''); UAL Corporation (``UAUA'');
Verizon Communications, Inc. (``VZ''), and United States Steel
Corporation (``X'').
    The Exchange is proposing these fees to recoup the majority of
transaction and clearing costs associated with routing orders to Phlx.
As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these routing fees by filing
a new proposed rule change.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative for
trades settling on or after April 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ further believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ is one of eight options markets in the national market
system for standardized options. Joining NASDAQ and electing to trade
options is entirely voluntary. Under these circumstances, NASDAQ's fees
must be competitive and low in order for NASDAQ to attract order flow,
execute orders, and grow as a market. NASDAQ thus believes that its
fees are fair and reasonable and consistent with the Exchange Act.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance

of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, NASDAQ has
designed its fees to compete effectively for the execution and routing
of options contracts and to reduce the overall cost to investors of
options trading.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-040 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-040. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2010-040 and should be submitted on or before April 30, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8153 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5876-5880]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology

[Docket Number: OST-2014-0112]

Agency Information Collection Activity; Response to Comments on
Notice of Request for Approval To Collect New Information: Voluntary
Near Miss Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental
Shelf

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: On July 2, 2014, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
announced its intention in a Federal Register Notice (79 FR 37837) to
request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the
following

information collection: Voluntary Near Miss Reporting in Oil and Gas
Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). At that time, BTS also
encouraged interested parties to submit comments to docket number DOT-
OST-2014-0112, allowing for a 60-day comment period. The comment period
closed on September 2, 2014. BTS received three public comments from:
LLOG Exploration (DOT-OST-2014-0112-0004), the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and the Center for Offshore Safety (COS) (DOT-OST-2014-
0112-0003), and the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC) (DOT-OST-2014-
0112-0002). The purpose of this Notice is to respond to the comments
received on the July 2, 2014 announcement and allow 30 days for public
comment to OMB on this collection from all interested individuals and
organizations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: BTS seeks public comments on its proposed information
collection. Comments should address whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of the estimated burden hours of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: BTS Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation, RTS-31,
E36-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone
No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Data Confidentiality Provisions: The confidentiality of near miss
data is protected under the BTS confidentiality statute (49 U.S.C.
6307) and the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical
Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347, Title V). In
accordance with these confidentiality statutes, only statistical and
non-identifying data will be made publicly available through reports.
BTS will not release to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), or to any other public or private entity, any
information that might reveal the identity of individuals or
organizations mentioned in near miss reports without explicit consent
of the respondent.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Data Collection

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; as
amended) and 5 CFR part 1320 require each Federal agency to obtain OMB
approval to initiate an information collection activity. BTS is seeking
OMB approval for the following BTS information collection activity:
    Title: Voluntary Confidential Near Miss Reporting in Oil and Gas
Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.
    OMB Control Number: TBD.
    Type of Review: Approval of data collection.
    Respondents: Employees working in the oil and gas industry on the
OCS.
    Number of Potential Responses: Based on near miss reporting trends
in other industries, BTS expects to receive no more than two responses
per calendar day during the first three years of the program
(approximately 730 responses per year).
    Estimated Time per Response: Not to exceed 60 minutes (this
includes estimated time for a follow up interview, if needed).
    Frequency: Intermittent for 3 years. (Reports are submitted when
there is a qualifying event, i.e., when a near miss occurs in oil and
gas operations on the OCS.)
    Total Annual Burden: 730 hours.

II. Public Participation and Request for Public Comments

    On July 2, 2014, BTS published a notice (70 FR 37837) encouraging
interested parties to submit comments to docket number DOT-OST-2014-
0112 and allowing for a 60-day comment period. The comment period
closed on September 2, 2014. To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, ``DOT-OST-2014-0112''
in the ``Search'' box and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose document listed to review. If you do not
have access to the Internet, you may view the docket by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    All comments the BTS received were posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and BTS Responses

A. General Discussion

    BTS announced on July 2, 2014, in a Federal Register Notice (79 FR
37837), its intention to request that OMB approve the following
information collection: Voluntary Near Miss Reporting in Oil and Gas
Operations on the OCS. BTS received three comments during the 60-day
public comment period. Comments from LLOG Exploration, API/COS, and the
OOC covered various topics including the definition of a near miss
reporting (i.e., the reporting of conditions, root cause analysis,
duplicative reporting, information-sharing, the scope of reporting, and
the potential for reporting to multiple systems), the estimated number
of burden hours, notification of near misses at their respective
facilities, evaluation of the program, and the intent of the 2011
report by the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
(the National Commission Report).

B. Definition of a Near Miss

    All three of the commenters had questions about the description of
a near miss used by BTS in the July 2, 2014 notice. BTS appreciates the
commenters' concerns. BTS intends the term ``near miss'' to encompass a
variety of safety conditions, since a narrow operational definition of
the term may unduly inhibit reporting of events or conditions that,
regardless of potential severity, would limit the program's
effectiveness in preventing and minimizing safety risks. In addition,
the BTS' description of the term is consistent with the International
Maritime Organization's (IMO) definition of a ``near miss'' and is
therefore widely recognized around the world.''

C. Reporting

1. Reporting of Conditions
    Two of the three commenters were concerned that any hazard could be
deemed a ``condition'' and be reported as a near miss. BTS's experience
with the railroad and aviation industry close call/near miss reporting
programs indicates that the reporting of ``conditions' may be very
valuable to causal analysis of potential safety risks and the
prevention of safety incidents. By learning more about potentially
unsafe conditions, the public, government, and industry will be better
able to identify hazards, hazardous conditions, and potential design
and operational improvements that could reduce risks on the OCS.
2. Root Cause Analysis
    All three of the commenters sought additional information on
whether and how BTS would conduct root cause analyses of near miss
reports. In addition, one commenter had questions about the background
and experience of those individuals that would review and analyze the
near miss reports. BTS agrees that causal analysis of near miss
information reported under this program will be very important and
should be conducted by experienced personnel. For this program, BTS
intends to employ subject matter experts (SMEs) in oil and gas
operations and trained in investigative techniques to conduct follow-up
interviews with individuals who report near misses. Further, SMEs,
using well-established causal analysis tools similar to those widely
used by industry and research organizations, will collect additional
information about potential contributing factors to reported near
misses and unsafe conditions as well as help conduct causal analyses of
reported near misses.
3. Duplicative Reporting
    Two of the three commenters expressed concern about how multiple
reports for the same near miss event would be handled. BTS has
experience, through its other reporting programs, with identifying
duplicate reports for the same event; e.g., through comparing event
location, event description, event time, and other factors. In
addition, assessment and follow-up of near miss reports by experienced
SMEs acting on behalf of BTS will help identify duplicative reports.
However, occasional multiple reports to BTS of a single near miss event
by more than one source is not necessarily a problem. Reports on the
same event from different sources can provide different and useful
perspectives, and thus may help BTS obtain a more complete picture of
the event.
4. Information-sharing
    One of the three commenters expressed some concern over how long it
might take for a hazard to go uncorrected if it is only reported
through this reporting system; the commenter indicated that such
reports should be made directly to the facility or company involved so
that the hazard can be promptly corrected. If BTS receives a near miss
report indicating a significant hazard or condition exists that poses
an imminent risk, BTS will take action, consistent with CIPSEA, to
share that information with an affected facility or facilities, or with
the industry as a whole, as quickly as possible. Under CIPSEA, BTS may
disclose such reported information, as appropriate, if the reporter
consents to BTS doing so and in cases of potentially imminent risks,
BTS would seek such consent expeditiously. In addition, assuming a
reporter does not consent to share information from an individual
report, BTS may be able to aggregate data in a way that protects the
anonymity of the reporter and the confidentiality of the specific
report and share information about the potential risks in near real
time.
5. Scope of Reporting
    All three commenters had questions about the scope of reporting
near misses by individuals to the Voluntary Near Miss Reporting System
and advocated that near miss information should be reported by OCS
companies or industry associations. BTS recognizes the potential value
of the near miss reporting systems operated by individual companies and
other entities. The near misses reported to company or other industry
systems undoubtedly provide important safety information to the
individual companies and could provide valuable information to the
industry, government, and public, if shared. BTS looks forward to
discussing with industry groups and companies their potential
participation in a near miss reporting system.
    However, BTS does not agree that an offshore oil and gas near miss
reporting system should be limited to participation by companies or
other industry organizations that collect near-miss information. This
Voluntary Near Miss Reporting System provides strict protection, under
CIPSEA, of the reporters' identities and of the confidentiality of the
information, which is typically not afforded by company or other
industry organization reporting systems. Thus, this system will afford
individuals--including company and contractor employees--an opportunity
to report near misses that they otherwise might not feel safe to report
to their employers. Accordingly, this near miss reporting system could,
through BTS' aggregate reports, provide information to industry, the
workforce, the government, and the public about potential hazards and
unsafe conditions that would not be reported (or shared) under company
or other industry programs.
    Moreover, if participation in this voluntary program were limited
to companies, or other industry organizations, the information provided
to BTS would be circumscribed by whatever definitions or other
limitations each company or entity places on its reporting programs.
For example, as indicated by some of the commenters, existing industry
programs appear to focus on high impact or high potential events, to
the exclusion of lower potential events or conditions. By contrast,
this near miss reporting system extends to what industry might consider
``low severity'' near misses that could, depending upon other factors,
indicate the potential for more severe events to occur or demonstrate a
lack of safety culture or awareness about specific hazards with
industry-wide implications.
    Similarly, if this voluntary near miss reporting system were
restricted to participation only by companies or other industry
entities, the information submitted to BTS would also be subject to
whatever limits the specific company or entity places on the
information it chooses to share. For example, the company or entity
might decide to submit only information that it considered
``legitimate'' or significant, instead of providing the initial or
``raw'' information that the company/entity had received. BTS believes
there is potential value to be gained from near miss information that
companies/entities may think is of low severity or importance or of
uncertain validity, but that reflects the individual reporters' unique
perspectives on the event or condition.
    In addition, BTS disagrees with the suggestion made by two
commenters that individuals should not be allowed to participate in
this system because they would not understand `contributing factors' or
root causes. That concern is academic since individual reporters would
not participate in the causal analysis process; BTS, with help from
appropriately qualified SMEs, would perform causal analyses.

    Finally, based on its experience with other industry reporting
programs, BTS does not agree with the comment made by two commenters
suggesting that BTS limit participation in the program to companies/
entities in order to reduce the estimated time for responses. For the
reasons stated elsewhere in this notice, BTS believes there will be
substantial potential benefits from individual reporting and that, even
assuming a company could submit reports in less time than an
individual, the suggested efficiency of company reporting does not
warrant precluding individuals from filing reports offering their own
perspectives on the same events. Moreover, as discussed previously, if
reporting were limited only to companies, BTS likely would not receive
reports on all of the near-misses that could be reported by
individuals.
    In addition, BTS does not agree with the two commenters who
asserted that the estimated time (60 minutes) for individual responses
is excessive. The estimated time needed to complete an initial report
is approximately 15 minutes, which is short enough to encourage
widespread participation. The remainder of the estimated 60 minutes
would be used for a confidential follow-up interview, as warranted by
the initial report. It is important to point out that follow-up
interviews are voluntary and not every respondent will consent to be
interviewed. Although, a respondent who feels it is worthwhile to
voluntarily submit an initial report is likely to be willing to
participate in a confidential interview in order to ensure that the
reported information is clearly understood and correctly evaluated by
BTS.
6. Potential for Reporting to Multiple Systems
    Two commenters asserted that this near miss reporting system may
create redundant reporting with other private and governmental
reporting programs or near miss initiatives. In particular, the
commenters suggested that individuals may submit reports under BSEE's
regulation allowing voluntary reporting of hazardous or unsafe working
conditions on OCS facilities (30 CFR 250.193). BTS disagrees with these
comments. The BTS Voluntary Near Miss Reporting System is strictly
voluntary and is not intended to replace or interfere with industry,
BSEE, or other agency reporting programs, whether voluntary or
mandatory. Instead, the BTS Voluntary Near Miss Reporting System will
provide another opportunity for reporting a wide range of potential
hazard and risk information related to OCS oil and gas operations.
    As one commenter recognized, in some cases an individual may feel
inhibited about reporting a near miss to a company or other industry
reporting program and thus may choose to report the event or condition
to BTS under the protections afforded by CIPSEA. In such cases, there
would be no duplication of reporting.
    Similarly, an individual may prefer reporting to CIPSEA under the
guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality provided by CIPSEA rather
than reporting voluntarily to BSEE under 30 CFR 250.193. Although
section 250.193 of BSEE's rules allows an individual to report
hazardous or unsafe working conditions anonymously, BSEE is subject to
FOIA and cannot guarantee the anonymity or confidentiality of the
information to the same degree BTS can protect information collected
under CIPSEA. Thus, individuals concerned with protecting their
anonymity or with confidentiality may choose to submit near miss
information to BTS under CIPSEA rather than to BSEE. Moreover, the
types of issues that may be reported under Sec.  250.193 (potential
violations of BSEE rules and hazardous or unsafe working conditions)
are potentially not as inclusive as the issues that may be reported
under this near-miss reporting system.
    BTS also does not agree with the two commenters who suggested that
BTS should not accept reports for near misses that have been reported
to industry. The reports submitted to BTS will serve an important
purpose even if some of the near misses were also submitted to
industry. For example, the aggregated results of BTS analysis of near
miss reports will be widely disseminated to government agencies, the
industry, and the public. By contrast, information from existing
industry near-miss systems, to date, is generally not shared within the
industry or with the government and the public. In any event, at
present BTS has no way of knowing which specific near misses have been
reported to industry, and thus no basis for rejecting individual
reports submitted under this near miss reporting system.
    API/COS noted in their joint comments, the implementation of the
COS Learning from Incidents (LFI) program, which COS believes could
inform BTS's Voluntary Near Miss Reporting System but also demonstrates
a potential overlap between the two programs. BTS is aware of the
potential benefits of the COS LFI program, for COS' members, and looks
forward to discussing with COS the potential sharing of that
information with BTS, and potential sharing of lessons learned from
that information with all stakeholders. However, it is evident that the
LFI program is limited in scope to only information from COS member
companies regarding specifically-defined incidents and ``High Value
Leaning Events.'' Moreover, as API/COS also notes in their joint
comments, the aggregated information from that program is only shared
with COS members. For that reason, BTS does not agree that the proposed
near miss reporting system should be delayed pending the outcome of
further consideration of the LFI program.

D. Estimated Burden Hours

    Two of the three commenters questioned BTS's estimated number of
near miss reports that would be submitted. In particular, OOC claimed
that the number of potential respondents submitting reports could be up
to 4 or 5 times higher than BTS's estimate, ``if a reporting compliance
level of 10-15% is reached,'' primarily because the broad scope of
``near miss'' in this system will result in a large number of reports
on ``low potential'' events. In the absence of actual near miss
reporting rates in offshore oil and gas operations, BTS's estimates
were based upon BTS' experience with near miss reporting in other
industry sectors. This estimate will be revised, as appropriate, once
BTS can establish an expected annual reporting rate based on ``actual''
reporting statistics of near misses collected during the initial phase
of this program (i.e., first 3 years).

E. Notification of Near Misses

    Two of the three commenters asked that facilities be notified when
a near miss has been reported for their installation or unit. BTS,
however, cannot notify an owner or operator of a near-miss reported
which is reported in confidence without jeopardizing the anonymity of
the individual making the report or the confidentiality of the
information provided, and thus violating the statutory protections
afforded by CIPSEA, unless the reporter consents to sharing that
information. Moreover, if the reporter's identity were discovered, it
would open the individual up to potential sanctions or retaliation by
the company. The National Commission Report which recommended that BSEE
develop a near-miss reporting system for OCS oil and gas operations,
also specifically recommended that whistleblowers who notify
authorities about lapses in safety be provided protection: ``All
offshore

workers have a duty to ensure safe operating practices to prevent
accidents. To ensure all workers, regardless of employer, will take
appropriate action whenever necessary, Congress should amend the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act or specific safety statutes to provide the
same whistleblower protection that workers are guaranteed in other
comparable settings.''

F. Program Evaluation

    One commenter requested that BTS report the results of the program
to stakeholders at least once a year and that the program be evaluated
after two years of operation. The frequency of public reports will
depend on how many near miss reports are reported to the system. To
comply with CIPSEA, reports of aggregated data must be prepared in such
a way that no third party could determine the identity of a reporter,
directly or indirectly. BTS expects to issue public reports at least
once per year and potentially more often, as appropriate.
    With regard to re-evaluating the program after two years, as
demonstrated by near miss reporting in the aviation industry, it took a
commitment of several years before employee reporting increased
sufficiently to allow for a robust program evaluation. BTS agrees that
``formative evaluation'' is essential in developing a successful data
collection program and will conduct such evaluation as soon as there is
sufficient quantitative information in the near miss data system to
allow for such analysis. However, the potential value of sharing data
in a confidential manner is worth the investment of time and effort
because the continuation of environmental and human losses is an
unacceptable alternative to the public and the government.

G. Intent of the National Commission Report

    One commenter correctly noted that the National Commission Report
on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was issued in 2011, not 2013 as
the 60-day notice inadvertently stated. BTS, however, does not agree
with the commenter's suggestions that the National Commission Report
did not envision a government-managed system for near miss reporting,
or that the Commission's recommendation for an industry ``self-policing
institute that would gather incident and performance data'' would
satisfy the recommendation for a near miss reporting program. In fact,
the two recommendations are contained in different parts of the 2011
report, and it was in that part of the report directed to the
Department of the Interior (DOI) that the National Commission
recommended that DOI: ``Develop more detailed requirements for incident
reporting and data concerning offshore incidents and `near misses.'
Such data collection would allow for better tracking of incidents and
stronger risk assessments and analysis.''

    Issued On: January 28, 2015.
Rolf Schmitt,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2015-02053 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61657-61660]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0956; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-018-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Transport Category Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to revise an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to transport category airplanes that have one or more
lavatories equipped with paper or linen waste receptacles. The existing
AD currently requires installation of placards prohibiting smoking in
the lavatory and disposal of cigarettes in the lavatory waste
receptacles; establishment of a procedure to announce to airplane
occupants that smoking is prohibited in the lavatories; installation of
ashtrays at certain locations; and repetitive inspections to ensure
that lavatory waste receptacle doors operate correctly. This proposed
revision to the AD would extend the time an airplane may be operated
with certain missing ashtrays. This proposed revision to the AD was
prompted by the determination that certain compliance times required by
the existing AD could be extended and still address fires occurring in
lavatories caused by, among other things, the improper disposal of
smoking materials in lavatory waste receptacles. The proposed revision
to the AD would continue to prevent possible fires that could result
from smoking materials being dropped into lavatory paper or linen waste
receptacles.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 22,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office

(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Sinclair, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-2195; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0956;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-018-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 17, 1996, we issued AD 74-08-09 R2, amendment 39-9680 (61
FR 32318, June 24, 1996), for transport category airplanes that have
one or more lavatories equipped with paper or linen waste receptacles.
Revision 2, as well as previous versions of the AD, requires
installation of placards prohibiting smoking in the lavatory and
disposal of cigarettes in the lavatory waste receptacles; establishment
of a procedure to announce to airplane occupants that smoking is
prohibited in the lavatories; installation of ashtrays at certain
locations; and repetitive inspections to ensure that lavatory waste
receptacle doors operate correctly. The original AD resulted from fires
occurring in lavatories caused by, among other things, the improper
disposal of smoking materials in lavatory waste receptacles. We issued
that AD, and subsequent versions of the AD, to prevent possible fires
that could result from smoking materials being dropped into lavatory
paper or linen waste receptacles.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 74-08-09 R2, we have been advised that the
current required replacement schedule for missing or inoperative
ashtrays may be overly conservative and burdensome on operators. We
have determined that slightly extending the time an airplane may be
operated with missing or inoperative ashtrays will not compromise
safety. We have adjusted the compliance time accordingly in paragraph
(j) of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified that an
unsafe condition continues to exist or could develop on any transport
category airplane that has one or more lavatories equipped with paper
or linen waste receptacles. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would revise AD 74-08-09 R2 and would retain the requirements of
the existing AD. This proposed AD would simply extend the time an
airplane may be operated with some ashtrays missing or inoperative.

Changes to Existing AD

    We have added paragraph (m) to this proposed AD to include the
standard provision for operators to request approval of an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC). This provision did not appear in AD 74-08-
09 R2. Since the issuance of that AD, we issued Part 252 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 252), ``Smoking Aboard Aircraft,''
which bans smoking of tobacco products on certain flights. Therefore,
the risk associated with the identified unsafe condition in this
proposed AD has been reduced significantly. In light of this, we have
determined that an AMOC provision may be added to this proposed AD.
    We have revised the applicability of AD 74-08-09 R2 to provide the
list of manufacturers of current known transport category airplanes
holding U.S. type certificates.
    This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 74-08-09 R2.
Since AD 74-08-09 R2 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Corresponding requirement in
       Requirement in AD 74-08-09 R2              this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a).............................  paragraph (g).
paragraph (b).............................  paragraph (h).
paragraph (c).............................  paragraph (i).
paragraph (d).............................  paragraph (j).
paragraph (e).............................  paragraph (k).
paragraph (f).............................  paragraph (l).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    This action merely extends a certain compliance time and does not
add any new additional economic burden on affected operators. The
relief provided by this proposed AD would allow operators to continue
to operate airplanes without the required number of ashtrays for a
longer period of time than was previously permitted. This will result
in reduced costs to affected operators since it will reduce the
potential interruptions in service to reinstall the ashtrays. The
current costs associated with this AD are provided below for the
convenience of affected operators. The following table provides the
estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average labor
            Action               Work hours   rate per hour        Parts               Cost per airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placard installations.........            1             $85  Negligible......  $85.
Inspections...................            2             $85  $0..............  $170 per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-9680 (61 FR
32318, June 24, 1996) and adding the following new AD:

Transport Category Airplanes: Docket No. FAA-2010-0956; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-018-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November
22, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 74-08-09 R2, Amendment 39-9680.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to transport category airplanes,
certificated in any category, that have one or more lavatories
equipped with paper or linen waste receptacles. These lavatories may
be on various airplanes, identified in but not limited to the
airplanes of the manufacturers included in Table 1 of this AD.

                       Table 1--Affected Airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Airplane manufacturer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate previously held by AvCraft
 Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH).
AEROSPATIALE (Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale).
Airbus.
ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited.
The Boeing Company.
Bombardier, Inc.
British Aerospace Regional Aircraft.
Cessna Aircraft Company.
DASSAULT AVIATION.
EADS CASA (Type Certificate previously held by Construcciones
 Aeronauticas, S.A.).
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER).
Fokker Services B.V.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation/
Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Type Certificate previously held by Israel
 Aircraft Industries, Ltd.).
Hamburger Flugzeugbau GmbH.
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate previously held by
 Raytheon Aircraft Company; Beech Aircraft Corporation).
Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.
Learjet Inc.
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation.
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company.
Maryland Air Industries, Inc.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems.
Sabreliner Corporation.
Short Brothers PLC.
Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft Limited).
Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier,
 Inc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/furnishings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This revision to the AD was prompted by the determination
that certain compliance times required by the existing AD may be
extended and still address fires occurring in lavatories caused by,
among other things, the improper disposal of smoking materials in
lavatory waste receptacles. This proposed revision to the AD would
continue to prevent possible fires that could result from smoking

materials being dropped into lavatory paper or linen waste
receptacles.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD 74-08-09 R2, Amendment 39-9680, With
Revised Compliance Times in Paragraph (j)

Placard Installation

    (g) Within 60 days after August 6, 1974 (the effective date of
AD 74-08-09, amendment 39-1917), or before the accumulation of any
time in service on a new production aircraft after delivery,
whichever occurs later--except that new production aircraft may be
flown in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to a base where
compliance may be accomplished: Accomplish the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Install a placard on each side of each lavatory door over
the door knob, or on each side of each lavatory door, or adjacent to
each side of each lavatory door. The placards must contain the
legible words ``No Smoking in Lavatory'' or ``No Smoking,'' or
contain ``No Smoking'' symbology in lieu of words, or contain both
wording and symbology, to indicate that smoking is prohibited in the
lavatory. The placards must be of sufficient size and contrast and
be located so as to be conspicuous to lavatory users. And
    (2) Install a placard on or near each lavatory paper or linen
waste disposal receptacle door, containing the legible words or
symbology indicating ``No Cigarette Disposal.''

Announcement Procedures

    (h) Within 30 days after August 6, 1974, establish a procedure
that requires that, no later than a time immediately after the ``No
Smoking'' sign is extinguished following takeoff, an announcement be
made by a crewmember to inform all aircraft occupants that smoking
is prohibited in the aircraft lavatories; except that, if the
aircraft is not equipped with a ``No Smoking'' sign, the required
procedure must provide that the announcement be made prior to each
takeoff.

Ashtray Installation

    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: Within 180
days after August 6, 1974, or before the accumulation of any time in
service on a new production aircraft, whichever occurs later--except
that new production aircraft may be flown in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to a base where compliance may be
accomplished: Install a self-contained, removable ashtray on or near
the entry side of each lavatory door. One ashtray may serve more
than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the
cabin side of each lavatory door served.
    (j) An airplane with multiple lavatory doors may be operated
with up to 50 percent of the lavatory door ashtrays missing or
inoperative, provided 50 percent of the missing or inoperative
ashtrays are replaced within 3 days and all remaining missing or
inoperative ashtrays are replaced within 10 days. An airplane with
only 1 lavatory door may be operated for a period of 10 days with
the lavatory door ashtray missing or inoperative.

    Note 1: This AD permits a lavatory door ashtray to be missing,
although the FAA-approved Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) may
not allow such provision. In any case, the provisions of this AD
prevail.

    (k) Within 30 days after August 6, 1974, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours' time-in-service from the last
inspections, accomplish the following:
    (1) Inspect all lavatory paper and linen waste receptacle
enclosure access doors and disposal doors for proper operation, fit,
sealing, and latching for the containment of possible trash fires.
    (2) Correct all defects found during the inspections required by
paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (l) Upon the request of an operator, the FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector (PMI) may adjust the 1,000-hour repetitive
inspection interval specified in paragraph (k) of this AD to permit
compliance at an established inspection period of the operator if
the request contains data to justify the requested change in the
inspection interval.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to Attn: Alan Sinclair, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your PMI or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 30, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25124 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 99)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28911]
[DOCID:fr23my07-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 152, 156, 167, 168, 169, 172, and 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-1003; FRL-8132-1]
RIN 2070-AJ32

Plant-Incorporated Protectants; Potential Revisions to Current
Production Regulations; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for an ANPRM document
concerning potential revisions to current production regulations for
producers of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) published in the
Federal Register of April 4, 2007. This document extends the comment
period for an additional 30 days. The comment period is extended
because EPA received a request from the Association of American
Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO), the association representing State
pesticide regulatory officials. The extended comment period will allow
State regulators to consider the ANPRM at the State-FIFRA Issues
Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) national meeting June 25-26,
2007, and submit comments representing the consensus of their
membership.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the ANPRM published in the Federal Register of April 4, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Howie, Hazard Assessment
Coordination and Policy Division, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency identified in the ANPRM those who may be potentially
affected by that action. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    To submit comments, or access the public docket, follow the
detailed instructions provided in Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of the April 4, 2007 ANPRM.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    This document extends the comment period established in the ANPRM
published in the Federal Register of April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16312) (FRL-
8118-2). In that document, EPA stated that it is considering amendments
to the current pesticide establishment and production regulations
promulgated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), and to other related FIFRA regulations as needed for
producers of PIPs. EPA is extending the comment period, which expires
on June 13, 2007, for an additional 30 days. The new comment period
ends on July 13, 2007. The comment period is extended because EPA
received a request from the AAPCO, the association representing State
pesticide regulatory officials. The extended comment period will allow
State regulators to consider the ANPRM at the State-FIFRA Issues
Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) national meeting June 25-26,
2007, and submit comments representing the consensus of their
membership.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 152, 156, 167, 168, 169, 172, 174

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Plant-incorporated
protectants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 15, 2007.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. E7-9847 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 20, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-96-1346

     OST-97-2358

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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

Application of United Air Lines, Inc. filed 12/29/2003 to:

XX  Renew for two years exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following services:

Docket OST-96-1346

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States, via intermediate points,
and Manaus, Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Recife, Porto Alegre,
Belem, Belo Horizonte, and Salvador, Brazil, and beyond Brazil to
Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile.

Docket OST-97-2358

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail on a
code-share basis only between a point or points in the United States and
Campo Grande, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Florianopolis, Iguacu, Sao Luiz, Joao
Pessoa, Natal, Maceio, and Cuiaba, Brazil, and to serve these Brazilian
points on a co-terminal basis with the other Brazilian points United is
authorized to serve pursuant to its exemption authority in Docket
OST-96-1346.

Applicant rep:  Jeffrey A. Manley<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Linda
Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  January 20, 2004, through
January 20, 2006, or until 90 days after final Department action on
United’s corresponding application for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity in Docket OST-95-495, whichever occurs
earlier..

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Brazil, as amended.

(See Reverse Side)

2

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	   XX  Statement of authorization approving the United/Varig code-share
operations

          dated June 11, 1998, and conditions therein

________________________________________________________________________
____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend,
modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

			Attachment

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										08/2003

 United offers code-share services to Brazilian points under a
code-share arrangement with Varig, S.A.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 23701]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Greenville SCTAC Airport, Greenville, South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) is considering a request from the City and County of Greenville
to waive the requirement that one parcel (1.35 acres) of surplus
property, located at the Greenville SCTAC Airport be used for
aeronautical purposes. Currently, ownership of the property provides
for protection of FAR Part 77 surfaces and compatible land use which
would continue to be protected with deed restrictions required in the
transfer of land ownership.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by prior appointment at
the following location:
    Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Anna Lynch, Program
Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-
2747, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to
the FAA at the following address:
    Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Anna Lynch, Program
Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-
2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Danny Moyd, Director of Properties, SCTAC at the
following address:
    South Carolina Technology & Aviation Center SCTAC, 2 Exchange
Street, Greenville, South Carolina 29605.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Lynch, Program Manager, Atlanta
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park,
Georgia 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the City
and County of Greenville to release one parcel of surplus property
(1.35 acres) at the Greenville SCTAC Airport. The parcel was originally
conveyed to the City and County of Greenville on January 1964 under the
powers and authority contained in the provisions of the Surplus
Property Act of 1944. The surplus property will become the site of an
expansion of an existing manufacturing facility.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the Greenville SCTAC
Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on May 15, 2017.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-10447 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 9313]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR07-19-000]

ConocoPhillips Company, Complainant, v. Calnev Pipe Line, L.L.C.
Respondent; Notice of Amended Complaint

February 13, 2008.
    Take notice that on February 11, 2008, ConocoPhillips Company
(ConocoPhillips), tendered for filing an amendment to its complaint
filed on August 20, 2007 against Calnev Pipe Line, L.L.C.
ConocoPhillips states that, except as modified and supplemented by this
amendment, the allegations and supporting evidence contained in the
original complaint remain unchanged. In the instant filing,
ConcoPhillips amends its complaint to include supplemental analysis.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 3, 2008.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3120 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18958-18960]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Zilpaterol; Technical
Amendment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a new animal drug application
(NADA) filed by Intervet Inc. The NADA provides for use of approved,
single-ingredient Type A medicated articles containing zilpaterol
hydrochloride, monensin USP, tylosin phosphate, and melengestrol
acetate in four-way combination Type B and Type C medicated feeds for
heifers fed in confinement for slaughter.

DATES: This rule is effective April 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald L. Rushin, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Intervet Inc., P.O. Box 318, 29160 Intervet
Lane, Millsboro, DE 19966, filed NADA 141-280 that provides for use of
ZILMAX (zilpaterol hydrochloride), and RUMENSIN (monensin USP), TYLAN
(tylosin phosphate), and MGA (melengestrol acetate) Type A medicated
articles to make dry and liquid four-way combination Type B and Type C
medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed
efficiency, and increased carcass leanness; for prevention and control
of coccidiosis due to Eimeria bovis and E. zuernii; and for reduction
of incidence of liver abscesses caused by Fusobacterium necrophorum and
Arcanobacterium (Actinomyces) pyogenes; and suppression of estrus
(heat) in heifers fed in confinement for slaughter during the last 20
to 40 days on feed. The NADA is approved as of February 29, 2008, and
the regulations in 21 CFR 558.342 and 558.665 are amended to reflect
the approval.
    In addition, FDA has noticed that the codified indications for use
of tylosin in combination with melengestrol and lasalocid are not
consistent with the conditions of use approved for an abbreviated new
animal drug application (71 FR 39204, July 12, 2006). At this time, the
indications for use are revised to include the associated pathogens.
This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(2) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is
amended as follows:

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.

0
2. In Sec.  558.342, revise paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) and (e)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  558.342  Melengestrol.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Melengestrol    Combination
acetate in mg/   in  mg/head/   Indications    Limitations     Sponsor
   head/day          day          for use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) 0.25 to    Lasalocid 100  Heifers fed   To administer       000009,
 0.5             to 360 plus    in            0.25 to 0.5         021641
                 tylosin 90.    confinement   mg
                                for           melengestrol
                                slaughter:    acetate plus
                                As in         100 to 360 mg
                                paragraph     lasalocid
                                (e)(1)(i)     plus 90 mg
                                of this       tylosin/head/
                                section;      day:
                                and for      1. Add 0.5 to
                                reduced       2.0 lb/head/
                                incidence     day of a
                                of liver      liquid or dry
                                abscesses     medicated
                                caused by     feed
                                Fusobacteri   containing
                                um            0.125 to 1.0
                                necrophorum   mg
                                and           melengestrol
                                Actinomyces   acetate/lb to
                                (Corynebact   a medicated
                                erium)        feed
                                pyogenes.     containing 10
                                              to 30 g
                                              lasalocid and
                                              8 to 10 g
                                              tylosin per
                                              ton; or
                                             2. Add 0.5 to
                                              2.0 lb/head/
                                              day of a
                                              liquid or dry
                                              medicated
                                              feed
                                              containing
                                              0.125 to 1.0
                                              mg
                                              melengestrol
                                              acetate plus
                                              50 to 720 mg
                                              lasalocid/lb
                                              to 4.5 to 18
                                              lb of a dry
                                              medicated
                                              feed
                                              containing 10
                                              to 40 g
                                              tylosin per
                                              ton; or
                                             3. Add 0.5 to
                                              2.0 lb/head/
                                              day of a dry
                                              pelleted
                                              medicated
                                              feed
                                              containing
                                              0.125 to 1.0
                                              mg
                                              melengestrol
                                              acetate (from
                                              a dry Type A
                                              article), 50
                                              to 720 mg
                                              lasalocid,
                                              and 45 to 180
                                              mg tylosin/lb
                                              to a ration
                                              of
                                              nonmedicated
                                              feed.
                                             Lasalocid
                                              provided by
                                              No. 046573
                                              and tylosin
                                              as tylosin
                                              phosphate by
                                              No. 000986 in
                                              Sec.
                                              510.600(c) of
                                              this chapter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *

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

    (2) Melengestrol may also be used with:
    (i) Ractopamine as in Sec.  558.500 of this chapter.
    (ii) Zilpaterol as in Sec.  558.665 of this chapter.

0
3. In Sec.  558.665, add paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  558.665  Zilpaterol.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Zilpaterol
 in  grams/    Combination    Indications     Limitations      Sponsor
     ton      in  grams/ton     for use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) 6.8 to    Monensin 10    Heifers fed    As in paragraph       057926
 provide 60    to 40, plus    in             (e)(1) of this
 to 90 mg/     tylosin 8 to   confinement    section; see
 head/day.     10, plus       for            Sec.  Sec.
               melengestrol   slaughter:     558.342(d),
               acetate to     As in          558.355(d),
               provide 0.25   paragraph      and 558.625(c)
               to 0.5 mg/     (e)(1) of      of this
               head/day.      this           chapter.
                              section; for   Monensin and
                              prevention     tylosin as
                              and control    provided by
                              of             No. 000986;
                              coccidiosis    melengestrol
                              due to         acetate as
                              Eimeria        provided by
                              bovis and E.   No. 000009 in
                              zuernii; for   Sec.
                              reduction of   510.600(c) of
                              incidence of   this chapter.
                              liver
                              abscesses
                              caused by
                              Fusobacteriu
                              m
                              necrophorum
                              and
                              Arcanobacter
                              ium
                              (Actinomyces
                              ) pyogenes;
                              and for
                              suppression
                              of estrus
                              (heat).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 24, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-7307 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S