Meeting Notes Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Work Group on Pesticide Worker Safety Regulatory Enhancements The first meeting on Pesticide Worker Safety Regulatory Enhancements was held on February 27, 2006 in Arlington, VA. The EPA made presentations on the proposed pesticide worker safety program regulation changes ( 40CFR 170, 171), with brief discussion of the issues that will be addressed through the proposed rule making. Handouts included the Report on the National Assessment of the EPA's Pesticide Worker Safety Program, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee ( PPDC) work group charter, and a copy of the EPA presentation. In addition, these materials were e mailed to the work group. The meeting agenda and the PPDC work group member list are appended to these notes.

Work group members attending: Chuck Andrews  California Department of Pesticide Regulation Lori Berger  California Minor Crops Council ( via teleconference) Amy Brown  University of Maryland State, Extension Service Gina Davis  Michigan Department of Agriculture ( via teleconference) Shelley Davis  Farmworker Justice Fund Hope Driscol  Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs Tom Hall  CropLife America Kerry Hoffman Richards  Pennsylvania State University Extension Service Al Jennings  U. S. Department of Agriculture Melody M. Kawamoto  Center for Disease Control ( via teleconference) Amy Liebman  Migrants Clinicians Network Curt Lunchick  Bayer CropScience Carol Ramsay  Washington State University, Extension Service Mary Ellen Setting  Maryland Department of Agriculture Greg Watson  Syngenta Other attendees: Wayne Carlson  Bayer CropScience Kate Scott  Farmworker Justice Fund Teung Chen  U. S. Department of Agriculture Aaron Wallisch  DLA Piper Jake McKenzie  City of Rohnert Park Environmental Protection Agency attendees: Office of Pesticide Programs Bill Diamond, Kevin Keaney, Donald Eckerman, Kathy Davis, Michelle Devaux, Elizabeth Owens, Carolyn Schroeder, Michael Walsh, Jean Frane, Richard Dumas Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation Kevin DeBell Agenda Sections  Presentation Notes Pesticide Worker Safety Regulations, Program Context, Role in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Regulation Making Process, and the Role of the PPDC Work Group.

Bill Diamond, Director of the Field and External Affairs Division, gave a presentation on the pesticide worker safety program, which included the background of the program, the existing program regulations, and the program's role in risk assessment and in risk management. He outlined the rationale for regulatory change, the issues identified through the national assessment of the pesticide worker safety program, the activities of the Certification and Training Assessment Group, and the rule making administrative process. The work group was encouraged to comment on the proposed changes. There is no expectation that there will be a consensus document from the work group. The group will be asked to review documents at critical junctures.

Pesticide Worker Safety Program Assessments and Stakeholder Involvement, Potential Enhancements to the Certified Applicator Regulation ( 40CFR 171), the Agricultural Worker Protection Regulation ( 40CFR 170), and Label Regulation Amendments.

Kevin Keaney, Chief of the Certification and Worker Protection Branch, gave a presentation on the proposed areas of change to the regulation for the certification of pesticide applicators, the agricultural worker protection regulation, and the regulations for labels. He emphasized the results of the pesticide worker safety program assessments, the activity of the Certification and Training Assessment Group, and findings from other venues of stakeholder involvement.

The potential regulation enhancements and change areas were outlined, followed by work group questions and discussion.

Areas Proposed for Change to the Certified Applicator Regulation to Enhance Protection or to Enhance Efficiency Protective: Appropriate Coverage & Raise Competency C Expand scope of users required to demonstrate competency C Eliminate " under the supervision"

C Require restricted use pesticide dealers to prove competency C Require trainers to prove competency C Set minimum age for occupational users C Require testing for all occupational users C Set standard requirements for testing C Competency requirements consistent with risk C Evaluate ongoing competency C Ensure continued evidence of competency Efficiency C Develop standard certification categories C Equalize standards for states/ tribes/ territories C Assure program accountability Discussion of Certified Applicator Regulation Potential Change Areas:

 Competency gauge for private applicators. Clarification was requested regarding the testing of private applicators to demonstrate competency. Would this apply to re certification as well?

 Under the direct supervision. There was discussion about " under the direct supervision." States have a variety of definitions for " under the direct supervision," including multiple definitions within a state. If the scope of the users required to demonstrate competency is expanded to include a wider range of occupational users, then issues related to " under the direct supervision" could be resolved. There was discussion regarding better specifying or clarifying of " under the direct supervision" language on labels.

 A competency gauge for agricultural pesticide handlers. The handlers could be required to demonstrate competency if the regulation's scope is expanded. The language and the education of handlers need to be considered.

 Require restricted use pesticide dealers to demonstrate competency. There were some questions raised regarding the certification of dealers. There is wide variation among states on what it means to be a certified dealer. Currently, in most states, the dealer manager is certified, but the sales associate may not be certified. Work group members pointed out that decisions will need to be made about who must demonstrate competency.

 Require trainers to prove competency. There was discussion as to who should or could be a trainer. Members pointed out that many people may be involved in training, including those who give presentations or lectures. Who among these will be required to prove competency?

 Competency requirements consistent with risk. Tiering of competency requirements based on application method or pesticide product toxicity was discussed. California's tiering by application method was noted. Canada's tiering systems were mentioned. There was a discussion about what constitutes high risk methods and products, and how the risk will be tiered. Also, the role of the employer in the protection of the worker was discussed. The use of regulation to drive improvements in engineering controls was discussed.

 Category specific exams. There is a lot of variation among states regarding which tests are needed for different categories. The EPA discussed the development of a national aerial exam as an example of a category specific exam and a validated exam. There needs to be more discussion to determine the appropriate, job specific subject matter on tests.  Closed book exams. It was suggested that resource material should be included when considering closed book exams. Finding information in reference material demonstrates a level of competency. The definition of what constitutes " closed book exam" needs to be clearly refined.

 Existence of other developing work. Meeting participants encouraged the EPA to take into consideration other regulations and other program enhancements as the regulation proposal develops. Changes to the program need to consider the impact of other existing or proposed programs, such as the global harmonization system.

 E media. A committee member recommended the use of e media as a vehicle for information in the regulations. For example, making labels available on line would be a useful tool.

 Home owners. Concern was expressed that homeowners have access to pesticides and can use the product without training. There was some discussion about whether this should be a work group concern. The proposed changes intend to link increased risk to the need for increased skills. In Canada, the distinction between home use and occupational use is based on whether the product is ready to use versus needing to be mixed and measured. It was noted that the current regulations address occupational uses and risks, but not consumer uses. It was mentioned that the risk for homeowners differs from an occupational user, who, over time has greater risk for both acute and chronic pesticide health issues.

 Budget concerns. Concerns regarding an increased economic burden were expressed. Some discussion focused on the cost of developing validated exams. For all of the proposed changes, the EPA will conduct analyses to assess economic impacts.

 Impact of changes on other areas of the regulation. Attention was drawn to the fact that the proposed changed are interconnected. Decisions made in the development of one proposed change may affect another change. The overlap and relatedness of the changes need to be considered as the changes developed.

 Definitions. Definitions, such as " an occupational user" and " under the direct supervision," need further refinement. As the regulations are developed, terms will need to be more clearly defined.

Areas Proposed for Change to the Agricultural Worker Protection Regulation to Enhance Protection or to Enhance Efficiency Protective: Inform Workers C Ensure meaningful hazard communications C Ensure meaningful training C Require trainers to demonstrate competency C Establish training verification system C Protect children from pesticide treated fields Efficiency C Clarify vague WPS provisions C Clarify exceptions C Exempt certified crop advisors & aerial applicators C Require handlers to demonstrate competency C Express regulation in plain English C Assure program accountability Discussion of Agricultural Worker Protection Regulation Potential Change Areas  Ensure meaningful training. There are significant resource implications associated with the proposed regulatory changes. Train the trainer infrastructure will need to be enhanced or developed. Currently, certified applicators can train handlers and workers in WPS safety training. There need to be a decision on who will be a recognized trainer.

 Establish training verification system. There were questions regarding how this would be accomplished.

 Protection of children. How to protect children, who enter pesticide treated fields, was discussed. A suggestion was made that risks to children emphasized in the required safety training. It was recommended to take into consideration the age of children when considering restrictions. For example, teenagers are a very different target audience than adults, and must be considered different from younger children. There was discussion about children in the fields who are not employed. A work group member referred to the National Academy of Science 2000 / 2001 report on youth workers regarding the suggestions for enhanced training.

 Require handlers to demonstrate competency. Support was voiced to add handlers to the occupational group requiring demonstration of competency.

 Risk reduction for handlers. Risk reduction for handlers could include closed mixing and loading systems   now required in California.

 Cholinesterase monitoring. It was recommended to require monitoring for all handlers. It is being used in California and Washington for applicators. It was recommended that monitoring data be used to show the effectiveness of protections.

 Exceptions. It was recommended that the EPA remove the re entry irrigation and low contact exceptions for workers.

 Training grace period. Support was shown for a shorter training grace period.

 Showering facilities. A recommendation was made to consider requiring showers for handlers in order to address the risk of take home exposure and of long term exposures from pesticides.

 Mandatory reporting. There was some discussion regarding an incident surveillance system and a reporting requirement for employers.

 Personal protection equipment ( PPE). There was some discussion of PPE requirements, specifically related to respirators and fit testing. There was a question of whether or not half face respirators are viable exposure protection devices.

 Other regulations. It was recommended that aspects of OSHA protections should be examined for applicability to farm workers. Work group members gave multiple examples throughout the meeting of state approaches to many issues.

 Hazard communication and worker training. Members from the work group gave ideas for hazard communication posting ( e. g., when a crop is treated, post a REI expiration date and contact information for grower / employee). It was suggested that workers be trained on pesticide specific health effects and worker rights.

Areas Proposed for Change to the Label Regulations and Labels Labels C Amend labeling rules to make applicator certification changes enforceable C Amend labeling rules to make agricultural worker protection changes enforceable C Revise labels to conform to rule changes Other Topics o Proposed Regulation Change Schedule August 2007 is the projected date to publish the proposed rule for public comment. A first draft of the proposals is scheduled for summer 2006. o Action Items Work group members should list the most important issues and comments presented at this meeting. Member's response to the meeting's presentations should be sent to Donald Eckerman at eckerman. donald@ epa. gov or to Kevin Keaney at keaney. kevin@ epa. gov by March 15, 2006. o Closing There were no comments or questions from the public.

Appendices Appendix 1: PPDC Subgroup Meeting Agenda Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Subgroup on Pesticide Worker Safety Regulatory Enhancements Crystal Mall 2, Room 1126 February 27, 2006 9: 00A Bill Diamond, Director, Field & External Affairs Division Introductions  Role  Logistics  Agenda Pesticide Worker Safety Regulations  Program Context  Role in Risk Assessment and Risk Management Regulation Making Process Questions 9: 45A Kevin Keaney, Chief, Certification & Worker Protection Branch Pesticide Worker Safety Program Assessments  Stakeholder Involvement 10: 30A Break 10: 45A Potential Enhancements Certified Applicator Regulation Changes ( 40 CFR 171) Protective Requirements Operational Efficiencies Questions / Discussion 12: 30P Lunch 1: 30P Potential Enhancements Agricultural Worker Protection Regulation Changes ( 40 CFR 170) Protective Requirements Operational Efficiencies Questions / Discussion 3: 00P Break 3: 15P Potential Enhancements Label Regulation Amendments Questions / Discussion 3: 45P Schedule  Next Steps 4: 30P Public Comment / Questions 5: 00P Closing Remarks Appendix 2: PPDC Subgroup Members Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Subgroup Members Rebeckah Freeman Adcock, Director Congressional Relations American Farm Bureau Federation Jose Amador, Director Agricultural Research & Extension Center Texas A & M University Chuck Andrews, Chief Worker Health & Safety Branch California Department of Pesticide Regulation California Environmental Protection Agency Lori A. Berger, Director Technical Affairs California Minor Crops Council Amy E. Brown, Coordinator Pesticide Safety Education Program Entomology Department University of Maryland Gina Davis, Deputy Director Pesticide and Plant Pest Management Division Michigan Department of Agriculture Shelley Davis, Deputy Director Farmworker Justice Fund Hope Driscoll, Program Manager SAFE Americorps Program Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs Tom Hall, Stewardship Director CropLife America Kerry Hoffman Richards, Manager Pest Management Information Center Pesticide Education Program Pennsylvania State University Allen Jennings, Director Office of Pest Management Policy United States Department of Agriculture Melody M. Kawamoto, Medical Officer Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Amy K. Liebman, Program Manager Environmental and Occupational Health Migrant Clinicians Network Curt Lunchick, Head Nondietary Exposure and Risk Assessment Bayer CropScience Erik Nicholson, Director Pacific Northwest Region United Farm Workers of America, AFL CIO Carol Ramsay, Pesticide Education Specialist Extension IPM & Pesticide Education Program Washington State University Robert M. Rosenberg, Vice President Government Affairs National Pest Management Association, Inc.

Mary Ellen Setting, Assistant Secretary Office of Plant Industries & Pest Management Maryland Department of Agriculture Greg Watson, Herbicides Team Leader Syngenta


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 216 (Friday, November 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62727-62729]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0495]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, Olmsted, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on a
portion of the Ohio River in Olmsted, IL. This action is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving
explosives. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective December 2, 2021, through December 1,
2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0495 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email MST2, Dylan Caikowski, MSU Paducah, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 2120, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels on the
navigable waters of the Ohio River during the demolition of Lock and
Dam 53. During this time, a temporary safety zone on the Ohio River
will be necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from
potential damage and safety hazards associated with the demolition of
Lock and Dam 53. In response, on July 19, 2021, the Coast Guard
published an interim final rule (IFR) titled ``Safety Zone; Ohio River,
Olmsted, IL'' (86 FR 37911). There we stated why we issued the interim
final rule and invited comments on our regulatory action related to the
demolition of the Lock and Dam 53 on the Ohio River. During the comment
period that ended August 18, 2021, we received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with
demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving explosives will be a safety
concern for anyone on the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 961 to MM
964.6. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
before, during, and after the demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving
explosives.
    The Coast Guard is making this rule effective sooner than 30 days
after publication pursuant to authority under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), specifically 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This provision
authorizes an agency to make a rule effective sooner than 30 days after
publication when the agency

for good cause finds that the delay is ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that delaying the effective date of this rule would be
contrary to public interest because this safety zone must become
effective on December 2, 2021, to ensure there is a continuous safety
zone in place to protect vessels and persons from the safety hazards
associated with the continued dam demolition on the Ohio River.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our IFR published July
19, 2021. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the IFR.
    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that covers all
navigable waters of the Ohio River from MM 961 to MM 964.6. This rule
will be enforced every day at midday from December 2, 2021, through
December 1, 2022 as necessary to facilitate safe demolition of Lock and
Dam 53. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) will be issued six hours
prior to the start of blasting to notify the public that the safety
zone is being enforced. Vessels will be able to transit the safety zone
when explosives are not being detonated. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative during demolition operations
involving explosives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety
zone will only be enforced daily for a short period of time and only
impact a small portion of the Ohio River. Additionally, this safety
zone will only be enforced in daytime hours during the demolition
operations of the Lock and Dam 53. Vessels may seek permission to
transit safety through the area from the COTP or a designated
reperesentative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone for the demolition of Lock and Dam 53 involving
explosives on the Ohio River in Olmsted, IL. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions

on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0495 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0495   Safety Zone; Ohio River, Olmsted, IL.

    (a) Location. The safety zone covers all navigable waters of the
Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 961 to MM 964.6.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective December 2, 2021,
through December 1, 2022.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced daily at
midday from December 2, 2021, through December 1, 2022, as necessary to
facilitate safe demolition operations.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) or designated representative. A designated representative
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector
Ohio Valley.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into the safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry
into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM channel 16.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public when the safety zone is being enforced via a
Broadcast Notices to Mariners.

    Dated: November 3, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-24601 Filed 11-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51170-51171]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0737]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0058

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension for the following collection of information: 1625-0058,
Application for Permit to Transport Municipal and Commercial Waste;
without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 15,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2021-0737] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2021-0737], and
must be received by November 15, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Application for Permit to Transport Municipal and Commercial
Waste.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0058.
    Summary: This information collection provides the basis for issuing
or denying a permit, required under 33 U.S. Code 2601 and 33 CFR
151.1009, for the transportation of municipal or commercial waste in
the coastal waters of the United States.
    Need: In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2601, the U.S. Coast Guard
issued regulations requiring an owner or operator of a vessel to apply
for a permit to transport municipal or commercial waste in the United
States and to display an identification number or other marking on
their vessel.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: Every 18 months.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 13
hours to 4 hours a year, due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-19756 Filed 9-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 67418-67420]
[DOCID:fr21no06-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54749; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Definition of Core Session for XLE

November 14, 2006.
    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 November 9, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which rendered the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to modify the definition of ``Core Session'' in
Phlx Rule 101, Supplementary Material .02(2), to state that the Core
Session shall take place for each equity security from 9:30 a.m. until
4 p.m., except for specified exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') in which
case the Core Session shall continue until 4:15 p.m. The text of the
proposed rule change is available

on Phlx's Web site, http://www.phlx.com, at Phlx'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, the Phlx included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Phlx 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to ensure that ETFs \5\
that trade on the Exchange have the same primary or core trading hours
as these securities have on their listing exchanges. When the Phlx
begins trading using its new equity trading system, XLE,\6\ the hours
of operation will change from the current hours of operation used on
the physical equity trading floor. Currently, for any given security,
the Primary Trading Session hours on Phlx are identical to the hours of
trading for that security on its primary market.\7\ Many ETFs trade on
their primary market until 4:15 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange represents that it will publish, via an
Exchange circular, a list of the exchange-traded funds that will
have a Core Session that ends at 4:15 p.m.
    \6\ XLE is the new equity trading system on Phlx for trading NMS
Stocks. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54538 (September 28,
2006), 71 FR 59184 (October 6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-43).
    \7\ See the pre-XLE version of Phlx Rule 101, Supplementary
.02(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting XLE, Phlx intended to modify its trading hours for
equities, but did not intend to change the ``primary'' or ``core''
hours that securities are usually traded. Specifically, Phlx adopted
its XLE Trading Hours with a Pre Market Session, a Core Session, and a
Post Market Session. The Exchange intended the Core Session to be
coextensive with existing primary sessions that are employed by other
exchanges. Phlx defined the Core Session as taking place ``for each
security during that security's `regular trading hours' as that term is
defined in Rule 600(b)(64) of Regulation NMS.'' However, by using the
term ``regular trading hours'' as defined in Rule 600(b)(64) of
Regulation NMS,\8\ Phlx inadvertently failed to make its Core Session
coextensive with existing primary sessions employed by other exchanges
with respect to ETF trading. The Exchange notes that while other
exchanges have adopted rules extending their primary trading session
until 4:15 p.m. for certain securities (i.e., ETFs), ``the Commission
has not approved an [exchange] rule modifying the definition of regular
trading hours [to some time other than 4 p.m] for purposes of Rule
600(b)(64).'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 600(b)(64).
    \9\ See Division of Market Regulation: Response to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS
Question 7.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify the definition of its Core
Session for XLE to allow the Exchange to set the ending time of the
Core Session to 4:15 p.m. for certain ETFs.\10\ This will allow those
ETFs that trade until 4:15 p.m. to trade until that time during XLE's
Core Session. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change
should reduce confusion among market participants who enter orders on
multiple exchanges in these products by allowing for the harmonization
of trading times across Phlx and other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5 (noting that the Exchange will publish a
circular listing the applicable ETFs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the
Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under
the Act,\15\ Phlx provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description
and text of the proposed rule change, prior to the date of the filing
of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
\16\ normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date
of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act \17\ permits
the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay,
which would make the rule change effective and operative upon filing.
The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because it allows the Exchange to implement this proposal without delay
in order to accommodate the Exchange's plans to commence operations of
XLE. The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that its
proposed rule change is based upon a similar rule of the Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'').\18\ For these reasons, the Commission
designates the

proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the
Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September
29, 2006), 71 FR 59563 (October 10, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-05) (approval
order for CHX's new electronic trading system).
    \19\ For the purposess only of accelerating the operative date
of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2006-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-73. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-Phlx-2006-73 and should be submitted on or before December 12, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19623 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P