[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43077-43078]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2134-000]

 Sky River Asset Holdings, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sky River Asset Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 29, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for

electronic 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 email notification when a document is
added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 9, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17804 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28055-28056]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1235-017]

City of Radford; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With
the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 1235-017.
    c. Date Filed: May 30, 2017.
    d. Applicant: City of Radford.
    e. Name of Project: Municipal Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Little River near the City of Radford in
Montgomery and Pulaski Counties, Virginia. The project does not affect
federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Tim Logwood, Director of Electric Utilities
for the City of Radford, 701 17th Street, Radford, VA 24141; Telephone
(540) 731-3641.
    i. FERC Contact: Allyson Conner,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: July 29, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-1235-017.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The existing Municipal Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A
293-foot-long, 58-foot-high reinforced concrete slab and buttress dam
that includes: (a) A south non-overflow section; (b) an overflow
bulkhead section; (c) an eight-bay spillway section each with a steel
tainter gate; (d) a powerhouse intake section; and (e) a north non-
overflow section; (2) a 77-acre impoundment with a gross storage
capacity of 562 acre-feet at a normal pool elevation of 1,772 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) and a net storage
capacity of 220 acre-feet between elevations 1,768 and 1,772 feet
NGVD29; (3) a 20-foot, 3-inch-wide intake section with angled steel
trash racks (3-inch by 5/16th-inch trash rack bars spaced 2.5 inches on
center) and a steel roller-type head gate; (4) a 27-foot-long steel-
lined penstock in concrete that transitions from a 13.5-foot-wide, 11-
foot-high entrance to an 8-foot-diameter conveyance to the turbine
scroll case; (5) a 30-foot-long, 28-foot-wide, and 62-foot-high
powerhouse containing a single 1,185 kilowatts turbine-generator unit;
(6) a 2.7-mile-long transmission line connected to the grid; and (7)
appurtenant facilities.
    The City of Radford proposes to revise its exhibit G to include
transmission facilities composed of only three, 560-foot-long, 4.16-kV
overhead conductors that transmit power to a switched disconnect/
interconnection with the local distribution grid. The City of Radford
states that the formerly licensed transmission line now serves to
distribute power to other sources along its length and is no longer
part of the project.

    The City of Radford operates the project in both run-of-river and
peaking modes. For the period 1984 through 2013, the project's average
annual generation was about 4,550 megawatt-hours.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing
Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter--August 2017
Issue Scoping Document for comment--September 2017
Notice that application is ready for environmental analysis--December
2017
Notice of the availability of the EA--April 2018

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: June 14, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12864 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 27155-27156]
[DOCID:fr14my07-65]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55719; File No. SR-Amex-2006-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 Relating to Procedures for
At-Risk Cross Transactions

 May 7, 2007.
    On February 17, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a new crossing procedure, the ``at-risk
cross,'' as an alternative to the Exchange's existing facilitation
cross procedure. On November 9, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change, and on December 1, 2006, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007.\3\ On March 28,
2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change,
and on May 3, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed
rule change. Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 are described in Item II below. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55068 (January 9,
2007), 72 FR 2044 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Amex proposes to revise the procedures applicable to cross
transactions in equity options to provide procedures for at-risk cross
transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Amex, on the Amex's Web site at http://amex.com, 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 Amex 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.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to provide an alternative crossing procedure
to supplement the existing facilitation cross procedure in Commentary
.02 to Amex Rule 950-ANTE(d). In this manner, the Amex would permit
``at-risk'' cross transactions by member firms. A complete description
and statement of purpose of the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, may be found in the notice of filing previously
published for comment in the Federal Register.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange made technical and clarifying
changes to the proposal \5\ and stated that the proposed at-risk cross
procedure would not apply to options classes that are part of the
Exchange's options penny pilot

program.\6\ In Amendment No. 4, the Exchange proposes to allow the
proposed at-risk crossing procedure to apply to options classes that
are part of the options penny pilot program.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, the Exchange made a clarifying change to the
language of Commentary .03(vii) to Amex Rule 950-ANTE(d). The
Exchange also confirmed that if a public customer order either on
the book or represented in the trading crowd has priority over the
at-risk cross, the member firm would be permitted to participate
only in those contracts remaining after the public customer's order
has been filled. Further, the Exchange represented that if there is
a public customer order on the book or represented in the trading
crowd on the same side of the market as, and priced at or better
than, the public customer order that is part of the at-risk cross,
the public customer order on the book or represented in the trading
crowd would have priority.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55162 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4738 (February 1, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-106).
    \7\ In addition, Amendment No. 4 makes non-substantive rule text
changes and shows the text of the final proposal as marked against
the current text of Amex Rule 950-ANTE(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act \8\ in general and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ in particular in that it is designed to perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and the national market system,
protect investors and the public interest, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and promote just and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will impose no 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

    No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on
this proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-Amex-2006-17 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-Amex-2006-17. 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 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 available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-Amex-2006-17 and should be submitted on or before May 29, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9176 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49646-49647]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP20-1088-000]

Southwest Gas Storage Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on August 6, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure and section 284.501 of the Commission's regulations,
Southwest Gas Storage Company (Southwest Gas Storage) filed a petition
requesting that the Commission issue a declaratory order granting
Southwest Gas Storage authorization to charge market-based rates for
the natural gas storage services performed at its Borchers North
Storage Field in Kansas and North Hopeton Storage Field in Oklahoma,
all as more fully explained in the petition.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal

Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity
to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet
through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 10, 2020.

    Dated: August 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17834 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31692-31693]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0313]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Requests for Inspection Under the Inspection by
Accredited Persons Program

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the eligibility criteria and
the process to be followed by establishments when requesting FDA's
approval to have an accredited third party conduct a quality systems
regulation inspection of their establishment instead of FDA, under the
new inspections by the Accredited Persons Program.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by August 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, M20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the
Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Requests for Inspection Under the Inspection by Accredited Persons
Program--21 U.S.C. 374(g) (OMB Control Number 0910-0569)--Extension

    Section 201 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of
2002, (Public Law 107-250), amended section 704 of the Federal Food,
Drug,

and Cosmetic Act by adding subsection (g) (21 U.S.C. 374 (g)). This
amendment authorized FDA to establish a voluntary third party
inspection program applicable to manufacturers of class II or class III
medical devices who meet certain eligibility criteria. On September 15,
2005, FDA issued a guidance entitled, ``Requests for Inspection by an
Accredited Person under the Inspection by Accredited Persons Program
Authorized by Section 201 of the Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act 2002,'' http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/comp/guidance/
1532.html. This guidance describes the eligibility criteria and the
process for establishments to follow when requesting FDA's approval to
have an accredited person (AP) conduct a quality system regulation
inspection of their establishment under the new inspection by the
Accredited Persons Program (AP program) instead of FDA. The AP program
applies to manufacturers who currently market their medical devices in
the United States and who also market or plan to market their devices
in foreign countries. Such manufacturers may need current inspections
of their establishments to operate in global commerce.
    In order to meet the eligibility criteria for requesting FDA
approval to have an AP conduct a quality system regulations inspection
of their establishment instead of FDA, applicants must submit a request
with certain information. The following information must be submitted,
which shows that the applicant:
    (1) ``Manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes''
class II or class III medical devices,
    (2) Markets at least one of the devices in the United States,
    (3) Markets or intends to market at least one of the devices in one
or more foreign countries when one or both of the following two
conditions are met:
    (a) One of the foreign countries certifies, accredits, or otherwise
recognizes the selected AP applicant as a person authorized to conduct
inspections of device establishments, or
    (b) A statement that the law of a country where the applicant
markets or intends to market the device recognizes an inspection
conducted by FDA or an AP.
    (4) Provided the most recent inspection performed by FDA, or by an
AP under the AP program and inspection was classified by FDA as either
``No Action Indicated'' or ``Voluntary Action Indicated'' and,
    (5) Provided notice advising FDA of their intent to use an AP, and
identifying the AP applicant selected.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   21 U.S.C.          No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
   Section:        Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
374(g)                        100                     1                100                 15              1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    There are approximately 8,000 foreign and 10,000 domestic
manufacturers of medical devices. Approximately 5,000 of these firms
only manufacture class I devices and are, therefore, not eligible for
the AP program. In addition, 40 percent of the domestic firms do not
export devices and therefore are not eligible to participate in the AP
program. Further, 10 to 15 percent of the firms are not eligible due to
the results of their previous inspection. FDA estimates there are 4,000
domestic manufacturers and 4,000 foreign manufacturers that are
eligible for inclusion under the AP program. Based on communications
with industry, FDA estimates that on an annual basis approximately 100
of these manufacturers may submit a request to use an AP in any given
year.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 27, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-12297 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45691-45693]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18768]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75530; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

July 27, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 20, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to

implement the fee change effective August 1, 2015. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to increase the number of issues a
Market Maker may trade per Options Trading Permit (``OTP'').
    Currently, the number of issues a Market Maker may quote and trade
in their assignment is based on how many OTPs the Market Maker has. A
Market Maker may quote and trade up to 100 issues under its first OTP;
up to 250 issues with a second OTP; up to 750 issues with a third OTP;
and, with a fourth OTP a Market Maker may quote and trade all option
issues on the Exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Market Maker may trade any issue on the Exchange, but may
only submit quotes in issues in the Market Maker assignment,
however, in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 6.35(i), at least 75% of
a Market Maker's trading activity must be in the Market Maker's
appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to increase the number of issues
``covered'' by an OTP (i.e., the number of issues in which a Market
Maker may quote and trade) as follows:
1st OTP Up to 175 option issues
2nd OTP Up to 350 option issues
3rd OTP Up to 1,000 option issues
4th OTP All option issues traded on the Exchange
    The Exchange is proposing to increase the number of covered issues
per OTP to encourage Market Makers to quote and trade more issues based
on the number of OTPs they currently have. By doing so, the Exchange
believes it will provide an opportunity for more liquid markets and
quote competition, which in turn will benefit all market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\6\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the increase in the number of issues covered
by an OTP is reasonable, as it allows a Market Maker to trade a greater
number of issues without incurring the expense of paying for additional
OTPs. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it solely affects Market Makers because only Market Makers are
required to have more than one OTP to correlate to the options issues
in their Market Maker assignments. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is designed to encourage Market Makers to
quote and trade additional issues, which would provide an opportunity
for more liquid markets and quote competition, which in turn will
benefit all market participants.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\7\ 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. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would continue to encourage competition, including by providing
more opportunities to quote and trade, thereby attracting additional
liquidity to the Exchange, which would continue to make the Exchange a
more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution and
price discovery. The Exchange believes the proposed change would not
unduly burden any particular group of market participants trading on
the Exchange vis-[agrave]-vis another group, as the change solely
impacts Market Makers. In addition, the Exchange believes that by
expanded [sic] the number of covered issues per OTP would encourage
increased liquidity and quote competition on the Exchange, which in
turn would benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues., [sic]
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and
consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with
other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \9\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \10\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-66. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-66 and should be submitted
on or before August 21, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18768 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


driver is convicted of two violations of Sec.  392.82(a) of this
chapter in separate incidents committed during any 3-year period.
    (ii) Third or subsequent violation. A driver is disqualified for
120 days if the driver is convicted of three or more violations of
Sec.  392.82(a) of this chapter in separate incidents committed during
any 3-year period.

PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

0
14. The authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; and 49 CFR
1.73.

0
15. Amend Sec.  392.80 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  392.80  Prohibitions against texting.

* * * * *
    (d) Emergency exception. Texting while driving is permissible by
drivers of a commercial motor vehicle when necessary to communicate
with law enforcement officials or other emergency services.

0
16. Amend part 392, subpart H, by adding a new Sec.  392.82 to read as
follows:

Sec.  392.82  Using a hand-held mobile telephone.

    (a)(1) No driver shall use a hand-held mobile telephone while
driving a CMV.
    (2) No motor carrier shall allow or require its drivers to use a
hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV.
    (b) Definitions. For the purpose of this section only, driving
means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including
while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control
device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include

operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the
vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location
where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.
    (c) Emergency exception. Using a hand-held mobile telephone is
permissible by drivers of a CMV when necessary to communicate with law
enforcement officials or other emergency services.

    Issued on: November 22, 2011.
William Bronrott,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-30749 Filed 12-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 11987]
[DOCID:fr20mr09-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourth Plenary Meeting, NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task
Force

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 9, 2009 starting at 1 a.m. to 4
p.m. Arrive in FAA Lobby at 12:30 p.m. for visitor check in.

ADDRESSES: FAA Auditorium, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force
meeting. The agenda will include:
     Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions);
     Work Group and Subgroup Status Reports and Planned
Activities;
     Discussion and Next Steps;
     Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production, Date
and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-6172 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Review of Chat Used as Minefill TO: File FROM: Bonnie Robinson OSW, USEPA DATE: December 13, 2005 I reviewed the use of chat as minefill in the Tri State Mining District states of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The initial purpose of the study was to determine if chat has been amended with cement and concrete for use as minefill. I found no evidence that chat has been or is currently being mixed with cement and concrete fro use as minefill.

In July 2000, Governor Keating's Tar Creek Task Force Subsidence Subcommittee concluded that a slurry of chat and fly ash could be used to backfill and seal open mine connections to prevent the chat material from moving into open mine workings at the bottom of the shaft or pit as occurred in the Picher Mining Field in Oklahoma ( Gov. Keating, 2000b, pp. 26 27). An Oklahoma DEQ study recommended conducting an evaluation of amendments, or additives to mix with the chat fill, that may reduce the generation of dissolved solids concentrations in the shallow ground water ( e. g., fly ash, lime, limestone fines, organic matter) ( OkDEQ, 2005b).

EPA Regions 6 and 7 used chat to backfill open mine pits and mine shafts in the Tri State Mining District states of Kansas and Oklahoma. The Missouri Department of Transportation, in consultation with the U. S. Bureau of Mines, developed plans to use chat as minefill in a 2001 construction project.

EPA and other agencies have expressed concerns about the environmental and health effects of placing chat materials underground or below the water table due to suspected high levels of lead, zinc, and cadmium that may be released from the materials. ( Gov. Keating, 2000b, pp. 26 27)

The Agency's findings regarding the current use of chat as minefill in the Tri State Mining District are summarized below.

Kansas EPA Region 7 used chat to fill mine shafts near Galena in the Cherokee County, Kansas Superfund Site ( US EPA, 1989). The selected remedy was to selectively place waste rock and chat in open subsidences, pits and shafts. This action would eliminate human exposure via ingestion and reduce long term shallow ground water and surface water metals loading ( p. 19). Mining wastes were segregated and wastes less than 1,000 ppm lead were placed at the surface 2 with more impacted wastes placed at depth or used as fill material for open dry shafts. Low concentration wastes or bull rock were used to fill shafts that contained water ( US EPA, 2000, p. 5). As of the 2nd 5 year review in 2000, leaching of heavy metals to the ground water system has been reduced, filled shafts remain closed, and ecological improvement has been identified ( p. 11). EPA and other agencies have expressed concerns about the environmental and health effects of placing chat materials underground or below the water table due to suspected high levels of lead, zinc and cadmium that may be released from the materials. An EPA Region 7 Mine Waste Fact Sheet cautions that " placement of fill material which comes in contact with freestanding water in an excavation or with surface water" may present a threat to human health or the environment ( US EPA, 2003, p. 3).

Missouri In 2001, the Missouri Department of Transportation conducted an intensive investigation to plan the location of a highway in the Tri State Mining District. Open mine shafts as deep as 60 meters could not be avoided and their threat to the future highway had to be mitigated. In consultation with the U. S. Bureau of Mines, MoDOT decided to seal the shafts with polyurethane foam plugs followed by 3 meters of reinforced concrete. The remainder of the shafts were to be filled with chat. Construction was scheduled for August 2001. It is not known if these plans were implemented. ( Hatheway, et. al., 2001)

Oklahoma The Oklahoma DEQ used chat to fill mine shafts in the Picher Field in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. The results showed that chat has a high probability of moving into open mine workings at the bottom of the shaft or pit. " Removal of chat ( with high lead, cadmium, and zinc concentrations) from the surface to native soil and placement in the subsurface removes the hazards to human health and ecological toxicity by breaking the exposure pathways. However, if the chat is placed in the subaqueous environment, contamination of the shallow ground water will occur with release of dissolved solids to the already metals rich ground water of the mine pool. Estimation of the extent and degree of contamination of the shallow ground water is the basis for monitoring the McNeely Green site and evaluation of the water quality results." ( OkDEQ, 2005b, p. 10) The study's recommendations include the following:

 Evaluate amendments ( additives to mix with the chat fill) that may reduce the generation of elevated dissolved solids concentrations in the shallow ground water ( e. g., fly ash, lime, limestone fines, organic matter   chicken litter, wood chips, etc.). ( p. 11)

 Evaluate the application of subaqueous placement of chat where water filled subsidences occur near streams or points of shallow ground water discharge. ( p. 11)

 Evaluate the effect on water quality of the mine pool resulting from subaqueous placement of chat directly into the mine workings through mine shafts or drilled holes. 3 ( p. 12)

Excerpts of relevant sections from Governor Keating's Tar Creek Task Force Reports From the Subsidence Subcommittee Report ( Gov. Keating, 2000b):

" Chat material has been used in some cases to backfill open mine pits. Chat tends to move into open mine workings if used without a more stable base material. If the bottom of the subsidence pit is sealed from the remaining mine workings, chat is an excellent fill material. Chat is also much cheaper to use as fill material than most other materials. Some concern exists regarding the potential health effects from placing chat underground due to the levels of lead, zinc and cadmium contained in the chat. Nevertheless, there are many advantages to using chat as a fill material." ( p. 7)

" Chat can be used as a cost effective material to fill subsidence areas if certain stabilization techniques are used. In the early 1990' s, the EPA Region VII utilized chat to fill mine shafts in Galena, Kansas in the Cherokee County, Kansas Superfund Site. The shafts were filled for engineering efficiency in mitigating the threatened release of hazardous substances in the surface mine wastes. The purpose of that cleanup action was to reduce the loading of heavy metals to ground water and surface bodies due to runoff and infiltration from the surface mine wastes in order to protect aquatic life. Also, by containing the surface mine wastes in shafts and subsidences, the direct contact threat to humans and terrestrial life due to exposure to hazardous substances in the waste was significantly reduced or eliminated. Their goal was not to fill shafts and subsidences to reduce the physical hazards associated with open mine shafts; however, such was a beneficial consequence of the work." ( p. 10)

Considerations regarding use of chat to fill mine shafts or collapsed areas ( pp. 26 27):

( 1) " Chat has a high probability of moving into open mine workings at the bottom of the shaft or pit. Numerous examples exist in the Picher Mining Field where chat was used to fill open mine shafts and collapse pits only to find later that the chat had moved into the open mine workings at the bottom and reopened the shaft and pit."

( 2) " The connections to any open mine workings at the bottom of the pit must be sealed in order to use chat as a fill material." Any connections should be " sealed to prevent the movement of the chat material. Sealing open mine connections could be accomplished by backfilling with mine debris ( mill foundations and/ or boulders) or using a fly ash/ chat slurry. Some of the water in the collapse area may require removal prior to backfilling with chat to prevent overflow as chat is being added. Once filled near the surface, layers 4 of clay and soil could be added and graded to prevent water from draining into the filled area."

( 3) " EPA and other agencies have expressed concerns about the environmental and health effects of placing chat materials underground or below the water table due to suspected high levels of lead, zinc and cadmium that may be released from the materials."

" The advantages of using chat as a fill material are:  Encapsulating large volumes of chat, thereby reducing the potential health hazard  Trucking costs for chat would be minimal  Preventing surface water from draining into the subsided areas  Reducing the amount of acid water reaching the surface  Providing a nearby location for disposal of chat fines which currently exist and for chat fines that may be generated in the future through chat washing/ screening  Reclaiming many acres of land  Providing a disposal location for material removed from drainage channels ( Tar and Lytle Creeks)" ( p. 27)

The Task Force recommendations include:  " Fill selected open mine shafts to reduce the occurrence of new subsidence in the Tar Creek Superfund Site," and  " The use of chat should be given serious consideration for backfilling subsidence features." ( p. 37)

Mine subsidence abatement techniques are described in Appendix F of the Subcommittee Report.

From the Mine Shaft Subcommittee Report ( Gov. Keating, 2000a):

The Mine Shaft Subcommittee recommended closing open mine shafts in the Oklahoma Picher Field area using backfill as the preferred method of sealing shafts which open into cavities that are less than 20 ft. high. ( p. 23). A Bureau of Mines 1986 study recommended waste rock, not chat, as an initial fill material in the Picher Field mine shafts. ( p. 12) The viability of using chat as fill material in mine shafts is still being debated by OkDEQ. Economic and environmental factors will ultimately determine if chat will be used. ( p. 17) The backfill method uses a range of gradations of fill material, from the coarsest at the bottom to the finest at the top. The OkDEQ will determine chat use guidelines based on a risk assessment of its use as a fill material. ( p. 17) Appendix B of the Subcommittee Report contains examples of backfill methods and cases where these techniques have been used.

References Chavez, Will, 2004. EPA, DOI, Army Meet with Tar Creek Residents, Inhofe a No Show. The Cherokee Phoenix & Indian Advocate, April 2004. 5 http:// www. cherokee. org/ Phoenix/ 2004/ images04/ APRIL_ complete. pdf Hatheway, A. W., Newton, T. E., and Anderson, N. L., 2001. Planning a Highway over Mined Ground: A Case History from the Tri State Lead and Zinc District. US DOT/ FHA Bridge Technology Document. http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ mine/ 01trbawh. htm Governor Keating's Tar Creek Superfund Task Force, July, 2000a. Mine Shaft Subcommittee Final Report. http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ LPDnew/ Tarcreek/ GovrTaskForce/ MineShaftFinalReport. pdf Governor Keating's Tar Creek Superfund Task Force, July, 2000b. Subsidence Subcommittee Final Report. http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ LPDnew/ Tarcreek/ GovrTaskForce/ SubsidenceFinalReport. pdf Hicks, Lisa, 2004. The Problem with Chat... Living in the Shadow of Lead. The Cherokee Phoenix & Indian Advocate, July 2004. http:// www. cherokee. org/ Phoenix/ 2004/ images07/ July04. pdf Newfields, 2003. Final Report: Subaqueous Mill Waste Disposal Demonstration Project, Waco Subdistrict, Jasper County, Missouri and Cherokee County, Kansas.

Oklahoma DEQ, 2002. Summary of Roubidoux Water Quality Tests for Phase II of the Tar Creek After Action Monitoring Project. September 2002. http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ LPDnew/ Tarcreek/ ROUBIDOUXWATERQUALSUMREPORT. pdf Oklahoma DEQ, 2003? Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek. http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ LPDnew/ Tarcreek/ Okplan. pdf Oklahoma DEQ, 2005a. Summary Report and Water Quality Analyses for the McNeely Green Monitoring Well, McNeely Green Demonstration Project, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 28, 2005. http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ LPDnew/ Tarcreek/ McNeely Green% 20MW% 20Report% 202 28 05. pdf Oklahoma DEQ, 2005b. Oklahoma Plan Progress Report July 2005. http:// www. deq. state. ok. us/ LPDnew/ Tarcreek/ ProgressReports/ OldProgessReports/ 2005/ DEQPr ogressReport705. pdf US EPA, 1989. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Cherokee County, KS, Operable Unit # 5, EPA ID: KSD980741862 ( EPA/ ROD/ R07 89/ 030). http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ sites/ rods/ fulltext/ r0789030. pdf US EPA, 2000. Second Five Year Review Report for Cherokee County Superfund Site, Cherokee County, Kansas. http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ sites/ fiveyear/ f00 07001. pdf 6 US EPA, 2003. EPA Region 7 Mine Waste Fact Sheet. http:// www. epa. gov/ region07/ news_ events/ factsheets/ fs_ minewaste_ moks_ 0203. pdf US EPA, 2004a. EPA Region 7 Fact Sheet: Proposed Plan Available for Comments. Cherokee County Superfund Site, Cherokee County, Kansas, Operable Unit # 6   Badger, Lawton, Waco, and Crestline Subsites. June 2004. http:// www. epa. gov/ region07/ news_ events/ factsheets/ fs_ cherokee_ cty_ superfndsite_ unit06_ ks06 04. pdf US EPA, 2004b. EPA Region 7 Fact Sheet: Record of Decision Signed, Cherokee County Superfund Site, Cherokee County, Kansas, Operable Unit # 6   Badger, Lawton, Waco, and Crestline Subsites. October 2004. http:// www. epa. gov/ region07/ news_ events/ factsheets/ fs_ rod_ cherokee_ superfndsite_ unit6_ chero keecty_ ks_ 1004. pdf


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	May 7, 2015

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	May 5, 2015 Presentation at the TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair and Conference

SUMMARY

      A presentation was made by EPA at the 23[rd] Annual TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair and Conference.  The presentation discussed the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants as part of a larger presentation on the Methane Strategy.  The meeting was in Austin, Texas.

ATTENDEES

Participants:	The meeting was conducted in a large ballroom at the Austin Convention Center and there was no registration process for any individual presentation or panel.

EPA Participant:	Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24221-24223]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0416]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bath Creek, Bath, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of Bath Creek near Bath, North Carolina, in support of
a fireworks display on May 26, 2018. This temporary safety zone is
intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of Bath Creek during
the Bath Festival fireworks display to protect the life and property of
the maritime public and spectators from the hazards posed by aerial
fireworks displays. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) North Carolina or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. on May
26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0416 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Petty Officer Joshua O'Rourke, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for
good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The publishing of an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential
danger to the participants and the public during the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action
is needed to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated
with this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential hazards
associated with the Bath Festival fireworks display on May 26, 2018, is
a safety concern for maritime spectators during the launch of fireworks
on Bath Creek in Bath, North Carolina. This rule is necessary to
protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards associated with
the aerial fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on
May 26, 2018. The safety zone will include all navigable waters within
150 yard radius of the fireworks barge at approximate position:
Latitude 35[deg]28'04'' N, longitude 076[deg]48'55'' W, on Bath Creek,
Bath, North Carolina. This safety zone is being established for the
safety of the maritime spectators observing the fireworks display. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. All
vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective
must depart the zone immediately. To request permission to remain in,
enter, or transit through the safety zone, vessels should contact the
COTP North Carolina or the COTP North Carolina's representative through
the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington,
North Carolina, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on VHF-FM marine
band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The half hour regulation
enforcement period should not overly burden vessel traffic based on the
short duration of the period. Smaller vessels will be able to safely
transit around this safety zone, which will impact a designated area of
Bath Creek, Bath, NC. Additionally, the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to notify vessels in the region of the establishment
of this regulation.

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 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 the precise number of small entities impacted is unknown,
Bath Creek has a low number of vessels transiting the area planned for
the safety zone, during the enforcement period. Although, 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
contact 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. If
you

believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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
safety zone lasting half an hour that will prohibit entry into a
portion of Bath Creek, Bath, NC. 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. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0416 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0416  Safety Zone, Bath Creek, Bath, NC.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge at approximate
position: Latitude 35[deg]28'04'' N, longitude 076[deg]48'55'' W, on
Bath Creek, Bath, North Carolina.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
designated by the Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) for the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety zones
in subpart C of this part apply to the area described in paragraph (a)
of this section.
    (2) With the exception of the fireworks barge and crew, entry into
or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
COTP North Carolina or the COTP North Carolina's designated
representative. All other vessels must depart the zone immediately.
    (3) All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes
effective must depart the zone immediately.
    (4) To request permission to remain in, enter, or transit through
the safety zone, contact the COTP North Carolina or the COTP North
Carolina's representative through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina
Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at telephone number
910-343-3882, or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.

    Dated: May 16, 2018.
Bion B. Stewart,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2018-11259 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27076]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 36

Calculation of Noise Levels Published in Advisory Circular 36-3

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Statement of policy.

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

SUMMARY: This action clarifies the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) policy on the calculation of derived noise levels submitted for
publication in Advisory Circular (AC) 36-3, Estimated Airplane Noise
Levels in A-Weighted Decibels. This action is intended to provide
guidance on calculating the derived levels used in that publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Skalecky, Office of
Environment and Energy (AEE-100), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3699; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Background

    Paragraph 3 of AC 36-3 states that ``14 CFR part 36 requires the
reporting of turbojet and large transport category aircraft
certificated noise levels in units of Effective Perceived Noise Level
in decibels (EPNdB). Many airport and other community noise analyses
utilize a noise rating scale that is based upon A-weighted decibels.
For this reason, A-weighted noise levels for aircraft under 14 CFR part
36 conditions have been estimated to provide a reference source for
aircraft noise levels that is consistent with the many noise rating
scales having A-weighted noise level as the basic measure.'' The noise
levels published in AC 36-3 for turbojet and large transport category
airplanes are usually submitted to the FAA by the airplane type
certificate (or supplemental type certificate) holder. The entity
submitting the noise levels for publication is responsible for deriving
the A-weighted level from the EPNdB levels submitted for certification.
    Recently, we received an inquiry requesting a clarification of
those reference procedures, data analysis procedures, and data
corrections that are to be used in deriving A-weighted noise levels for
publication in AC 36-3. The question and our policy stated in this
document apply only to noise levels for turbojet and large transport
category airplanes.

Policy Statement

    In order to ensure that all airplane noise levels submitted for
publication in AC 36-3 are derived in a consistent manner, it is the
FAA's policy that the noise levels be derived using the same reference
procedures, data analysis procedures, and data corrections/adjustments
that were used in deriving the 14 CFR part 36 certificated noise
levels. The only exceptions are for deviations necessitated by (1)
differences between the effective perceived noise level and A-weighted
sound level metrics, or (2) inclusion of approach noise levels
corresponding to use of less than the maximum flap setting, as
permitted under AC 36-3, paragraph 4.a. In the case of number 2, the
deviation is limited to the use of an approach configuration other than
the noise-critical configuration that is required for the noise
certification approach reference procedure by part 36, Appendix B,
paragraph B36.7(c)(5). Such deviations must be identified to the FAA
when the data are submitted for inclusion in the AC. No other
deviations will be accepted.
    When an airplane model that is already listed in AC 36-3 is
recertificated from 14 CFR part 36 Stage 3 to Stage 4, the noise levels
corresponding to the Stage 3 configuration are not automatically
replaced. The Stage 3 noise levels will remain in AC 36-3, unless noise
levels corresponding to the Stage 4 configuration are submitted for
publication. If Stage 4 noise levels are submitted, the FAA will remove
the Stage 3 noise levels from AC 36-3 for that model and replace them
with the Stage 4 noise levels when the AC is updated.
    Noise levels submitted for Stage 4 configurations must conform to
this policy for deriving noise levels submitted for publication in AC
36-3.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2009.
Lourdes Q. Maurice,
Acting Director of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-13333 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72557-72558]
[DOCID:fr28no08-139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 16, 2008 starting at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is

hereby given for a Program Management Committee meeting. The agenda
will include:
     Opening Plenary Session (welcome and introductions).
     Review/Approve Summary of October 2, 2008 PMC Meeting,
RTCA Paper No. 263-08/PMC-664.
     Publication Consideration/Approval.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-253B, Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for GPS Local Area Augmentation System Airborne
Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 281-08/PMC-669, prepared by SC-159.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-246C--GNSS-Based Precision
Approach Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Signal-in-Space
Interface Control Document (ICD), RTCA Paper No.283-08/PMC-670,
prepared by SC-159.
     Final Draft, Change 1 to DO-307, Aircraft Design and
Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance, RTCA
Paper No. 272-08/PMC-666, prepared by SC-202.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-294B, Guidance on Allowing
Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T-PEDs) on Aircraft, RTCA
Paper No. 274-08/PMC-667, prepared by SC-202.
     Final Draft, New Document, Safety, Performance and
Interoperability Requirements Document for Enhanced Visual Separation
on Approach (ATSA-VSA), RTCA Paper No. 288-08/PMC-671, prepared by SC-
186.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-262, Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for Avionics Supporting Next Generation Satellite
Systems (NGSS), RTCA Paper No. 289-08/PMC-672, prepared by SC-215.
     Final Draft, New Document, Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS) for Enhanced Vision Systems, Synthetic
Vision Systems and Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, RTCA Paper No. 290-
08/PMC-673, prepared by SC-213.
     Action Item Review.
     SC-213--Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision
Systems (EFVS/SVS)--Discussion--Committee Status and Review/Approve
Terms of Reference.
     SC-214--Standards for Air traffic Data Communications
Services--Discussion--Status--Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
     SC-211--Nickel-Cadmium, Lead Acid and Rechargeable Lithium
Batteries--Discussion--Status--Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
     PMC Ad Hoc--Interrelationships between Communication,
Navigation and Surveillance committee activities--Discussion--
Recommendation Review.
     Discussion--Terms of Reference Template.
     Discussion.
     SC-218--Future ADS-B/TCAS Relationships--Discussion--
Committee Status and Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
     SC-217--Terrain and Airport Databases--Discussion--
Committee Status and Review/Approve Terms of Reference.
     Special Committee Chairman's Reports.
     Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Document
Production, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E8-28238 Filed 11-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P