[Federal Register: August 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 45029]
[DOCID:fr10au07-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-539-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Limited Waiver of Tariff
Provisions

August 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 31, 2007, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, Northern
Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing a petition for a
limited waiver of its FERC Gas Tariff in order to allow Northern to
resolve period imbalances with Adams Resources Marketing, Ltd., Anglo-
Suisse Texas Offshore Partners, LLC., EOG Resources, Inc., Louis
Dreyfus Energy Services, LP, and Superior Natural Gas Corporation
without tiering the Monthly Index Price applicable to imbalances as
required by the tiering provisions of section 32 of the General Terms
and conditions of its tariff.
    Northern states that the waiver is requested because the
aforementioned parties incurred imbalances as a result of circumstances
beyond their control.
    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 and 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 date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time August 13, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15631 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69695]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27282]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300; FRL-10003-26-OW]
RIN 2040-AF15

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On November 13, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule pertaining to
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for lead and
copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
requested comments by January 13, 2020. In response to stakeholder
requests, the EPA is extending the comment period an additional 30 days
to February 12, 2020.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2017-0300 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information please
contact Erik Helm at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water (Mail Code 4607M), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-
0300 at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. General Information

    On November 13, 2019, the EPA published in the Federal Register (84
FR 61684) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions. The (NPRM) revisions and request for public comment, as
initially published in the Federal Register, provided for written
comments to be submitted to the EPA on or before January 13, 2020 (a
60-day public comment period). Since publication, the EPA has received
requests for additional time to submit comments. Many of the requests
cite the need for additional time to consider the regulatory changes
that have been proposed and to evaluate the substantial supporting
materials in the docket. The EPA has considered these requests and is
extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days until
February 12, 2020. The EPA will consider public comments in the
development of final regulatory revisions to the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. The proposal and
supporting documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300).

    Dated: December 13, 2019.
David P. Ross,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2019-27282 Filed 12-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11448-11449]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05291]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787; FRL-9974-72]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Pyroxasulfone in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the
contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact
is listed at the end of each application summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petition described in this document contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of
the pesticide petition. After considering the public comments, EPA
intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted.
Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination
on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket

EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is
available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
    PP 6F8521. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0787). K-I Chemical USA, Inc., 11
Martine Ave., Suite 970, White Plains, NY 10606, requests to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.659 for residues of the herbicide,
pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)
pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), and
its metabolites in or on Crop Subgroup 1C, tuberous and corm vegetables
(except granular/flakes and chips) at 0.05 part per million (ppm); Crop
Subgroup 3-07, bulb vegetables at 0.15 ppm; potatoes, granular/flakes
at 0.3 ppm and potato chips at 0.06 ppm. The high performance liquid
chromatography/triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) methods
has been proposed to enforce the tolerance expression for
pyroxasulfone. Contact: RD.

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

     Dated: February 28, 2018.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-05291 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22050-22051]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0139; Notice 1]

Autoliv, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), on behalf of Autoliv B.V. & CO. KG,
has determined that certain Autoliv seat belt assemblies do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat
Belt Assemblies. Autoliv filed a noncompliance report dated December 1,
2016. Autoliv also petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 2016, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this

petition is shown in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), has determined that certain
Autoliv seat belt assemblies do not fully comply with paragraph
S4.3(j)(2)(i) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209,
Seat Belt Assemblies. Autoliv filed a noncompliance report dated
December 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Autoliv also petitioned NHTSA on December
23, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Autoliv's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Seat Belt Assemblies Involved: Approximately 31,682 Autoliv
R230.2 and R200.2 front seat LH10[deg] seat belt assemblies
manufactured between May 6, 2016, and October 18, 2016, are potentially
involved. Autoliv sold the subject seat belt assemblies to BMW of North
America, LLC and Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC for installation
in their vehicles (``affected vehicles'').
    III. Noncompliance: Autoliv explains that the noncompliance is that
the Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in the subject safety belt
assemblies are equipped with a vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
which does not lock as designed when subjected to the requirements of
paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No. 209.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent
part:

    S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
    (j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
    (2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured on or after February
22, 2007 and for manufacturers opting for early compliance. An
emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt
assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
    (ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout exceeds the maximum
limit of 25 mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or
(B). The retractor is determined to be locked when the webbing belt
load tension is at least 35 N.

    V. Summary of Autoliv's Petition: Autoliv described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Autoliv submitted the following
reasoning:
    (a) ELR is Voluntarily Equipped with a Webbing Sensitive Locking
Mechanism: The ELR also contains a voluntary webbing sensitive locking
mechanism. The webbing sensitive locking mechanism is designed to lock
at approximately 1.4-2.0g with no more than 50mm webbing payout. The
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism was designed to meet the
requirements of other non-US markets.
    (b) Necessary Reliance on Automaker In-Vehicle Assessments to
Support Autoliv's Petition: With regard to the effect of the ELR on the
retractor locking performance of the seatbelt, as the equipment
manufacturer, Autoliv is not in a position to provide testing and data
on in-vehicle performance issues. However, Autoliv has consulted on and
reviewed the testing performed by both BMW and JLR and even
participated in some of the testing. Autoliv believes the tests
substantiate the claims set forth in both the BMW petition and JLR
petition. Therefore, Autoliv adopts and incorporates by reference, the
test results summarized in both the BMW and JLR petitions.
    (c) Owner Contacts to Autoliv: Autoliv has not received any
contacts from vehicle owners regarding this issue.
    (d) Accidents/Injuries: Autoliv is not aware of any accidents or
injuries that have occurred as a result of this issue.
    (e) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA previously
granted a petition from General Motors (GM) on a very similar issue.
[69 FR 19897, Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12366, Apr 14, 2004]. GM provided
test results and analyses indicating that while there existed a non-
functional vehicle sensitive locking mechanism within the safety belt
assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive locking mechanism provided
comparable restraint performance to that of a fully functional vehicle
sensitive locking mechanism.
    (f) Autoliv Production: Autoliv production has been corrected to
fully conform to FMVSS No. 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) and (ii).
    Autoliv concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject seat belt assemblies that
Autoliv no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors, equipment distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant safety
belt assemblies under their control after Autoliv notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-09498 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2549-2550]
[DOCID:fr15ja10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0604]

Clinical Accuracy Requirements for Point of Care Blood Glucose
Meters; Public Meeting; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled: Clinical Accuracy Requirements for Point of Care
Blood Glucose Meters. The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss
the clinical accuracy requirements of blood glucose meters and other
topics related to their use in point of care settings.
    Dates and Times: The public meeting will be held on March 16, 2010,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on March 17, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 3:40 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel in
Gaithersburg, MD, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. For
directions, please refer to the meeting Web page at http://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm187406.htm.
    Contact Person: Arleen Pinkos, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5618, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-
796-6152, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Persons interested in attending the meeting must
register by February 15, 2010. If you wish to attend this public
meeting, you must register

online at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/
MeetingsConferences/ucm187406.htm by close of business on February 15,
2010. Those without Internet access may register by contacting
Christine Kellerman at<PHONE_NUMBER>. When registering, you must provide
your name, title, company or organization (if applicable), address,
phone number, and e-mail address. There is no fee to register for the
public meeting and registration will be on a first-come, first-served
basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
Registration on the day of the public meeting will be permitted on a
space-available basis beginning at 8:45 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact the hotel at<PHONE_NUMBER> at least 7 days prior to the meeting.
    Directions to the hotel and other information about the meeting may
be found at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/
WorkshopsConferences/ucm187406.htm.
    Comments: FDA is holding this public meeting to raise public
awareness about the accuracy and clinical use of blood glucose meters,
to share ideas on the challenges associated with their use, to seek
public comments on this topic and to work towards identifying
solutions. The deadline for submitting comments regarding this public
meeting is April 20, 2010, by 5 p.m. EST.
    Regardless of attendance at the meeting, interested persons may
submit written or electronic comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two
paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit
one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The workshop will include 3 sessions on the
following: (1) Clinical accuracy for blood glucose meters, (2) tight
glycemic control in clinical settings, and (3) medications and other
substances that interfere with the technologies the devices employ.
Each session will include presentations from physicians, laboratories,
government and industry representatives, and patient advocates who are
experts in each area. Presentations will be followed by panel
discussions of session topics and questions from the audience.
    Glucose meters are used by millions of people with diabetes every
day. These devices have become smaller, faster, and more accurate over
the past 3 decades and now allow for better glycemic control by
diabetics than in the past. Glucose meters are not only used by
diabetics at home, they are also used by health care providers in a
variety of settings such as hospitals, emergency response units,
nursing homes, and physicians' offices.
    Some in the clinical and patient communities have questioned
whether the current FDA-recognized accuracy standards for blood glucose
meters are acceptable and have challenged FDA to require tighter
performance standards. Blood glucose meters are being used in clinical
settings and at home in ways that are not within the intended use of
the devices as evaluated by FDA. For example, glucose meters are
increasingly being used to achieve tight glycemic control despite the
fact that these devices have not been cleared for this use. There is
currently no consensus that blood glucose meters currently on the
market are accurate enough to be used in this way. Still, other
stakeholders believe the current analytical performance of glucose
meters is adequate and that there is no evidence to support the need
for higher standards. Other factors affecting the performance of blood
glucose meters include administered drugs, common physiological
conditions (such as diabetic ketoacidosis), and user-interface issues.
For example, the administration of therapies containing maltose, which
are commonly prescribed to patients in the hospital, have resulted in
falsely elevated glucose results. (FDA issued a Public Health
Notification about this risk. See http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm176992.htm and
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/
PatientAlerts/ucm177189.htm for more information.)
    In response to the issues identified previously, FDA is
reconsidering the current FDA-recognized glucose meter accuracy
standards, and is considering whether FDA review criteria for these
devices should be changed for reasons of public health. FDA is
interested in hearing from clinical experts about the clinical
requirements for blood glucose meter accuracy and precision, and the
benefits and risks of using glucose meters to achieve and maintain
tight glycemic control. The appropriate analytical and clinical
accuracy requirements for blood glucose meters will be discussed during
this meeting, as well as the potential benefits and challenges of
meeting those requirements. We are seeking participation from all
stakeholders including, but not limited to: Physicians, nurses, health
care providers who work in intensive care settings, industry, diabetes
educators, professional societies, consumers, and patient advocate
groups.
    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop may be requested in
writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857,
approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a cost of 10
cents per page. A transcript of the public workshop will be available
on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/
WorkshopsConferences/ucm187406.htm.

    Dated: January 8, 2010.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Acting Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-742 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28098-28099]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09943]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0054]

Alaska Railroad Corporation's Request To Field Test Its Positive
Train Control System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on April
25, 2022, the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) submitted a request to
field test new functionality to improve the safety critical nature of
existing functions, such as mandatory directive conveyance and
confirmation, and conditional authorities, and a safety server that is
being added in ARRC's PTC Office

Segment to provide safety oversight of these new functions with the
intent of improving the safety and efficiency of rail operations. FRA
is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on the railroad's
field test request.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by July 11, 2022. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0054. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 11, 2020, FRA certified ARRC's
Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) PTC system
under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 236.1015 and
Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 20157(h). Pursuant to 49 CFR
236.1035, a railroad must obtain FRA's approval before field testing an
uncertified PTC system, or a product of an uncertified PTC system, or
any regression testing of a certified PTC system on the general rail
system. See 49 CFR 236.1035(a).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on ARRC's field test
request by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of
this railroad's field test request, FRA will consider any comments or
data submitted within the timeline specified in this notice and to the
extent practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or
necessary modifications to a PTC system. Under 49 CFR 236.1035, FRA
maintains the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
railroad's field test request at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-09943 Filed 5-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 56186]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Docket No.               File date   Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    NONE..........................
Exempt:
    P-2428-007....................   10/7/2019  FERC Staff.\1\
    P-10254-026...................
    P-10253-032...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo forwarding email dated October 7, 2019 with Enel Green Power
  North America, Inc.

    Dated: October 15, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22885 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23830-23832]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

Docket No. FAA-2012-1131; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-34-AD;
Amendment 39-17440; AD 2013-08-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1,
1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. This AD requires daily post-flight
checks of the engine tachometer's unit cycle-counting feature. This AD
also requires ground-run functional checks within every 1,000 operating
hours. This AD was prompted by detailed analysis and review of the
accuracy of the engine's tachometer cycle-counting feature. We are
issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjana Murthy, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2012
(77 FR 73557). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) states:

    Following detailed analysis and review of in-service feedback
performed by Turbomeca on the Arriel 1 engines, the chapter 05-10
Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) of Arriel 1 Maintenance
Manuals has been updated in order to clarify the definition and
update the requirements relative to the cycle counting aid system
(modification introduced in production by Turbomeca modification
TU207 or TU243 and in-service, respectively, by Turbomeca Service
Bulletin (SB) 292 80 0190 or SB 292 80 0168), add associated
maintenance tasks, and modify the Power Turbine (PT) partial cycle
counting method.

    The SBs referenced above introduced the tachometer. The
tachometer's cycle-counting feature, in some instances, produced
results inconsistent with ground run checks. The inaccurate cycle-
counting results of the tachometer can lead to exceeding life limits on
critical rotating parts, which can cause uncontained engine failure and
damage to the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 73557, December 11,
2012).

Actions Since We Issued the Proposed Rule

    Since we issued the NPRM (77 FR 73557, December 11, 2012), the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued revised MCAI (EASA AD
2012-0187R2, dated December 6, 2012), which states that for affected
engines that have a tachometer installed, but the

tachometer is not used to count cycles, then no further action is
required.

Changes to Actions and Compliance Section of This AD

    We evaluated the revised MCAI (EASA AD 2012-0187R2, dated December
6, 2012), and we agree that for affected engines that have a tachometer
installed, but the tachometer is not used to count cycles, then no
further compliance action is required. We changed paragraph (e) of the
final rule by inserting a new paragraph (e)(1) to read:
    ``(1) If a tachometer is installed on the engine, but is not used
to count cycles, then no further action is required.''
    We also changed paragraph (e)(2) of this AD to clarify the
objective of the daily check. The objective is not only to compare the
cycle-count values from the tachometer and the daily check, but also to
verify that they agree. The NPRM (77 FR 73557, December 11, 2012)
stated:
    ``During the post flight maintenance inspection after the last
flight of each day, compare the cycles counted by the engine's
tachometer unit with the cycles counted by the primary counting
method.''
    The changed paragraph in this AD states:
    ``During the post-flight maintenance inspection after the last
flight of each day, verify that the cycles counted by the engine's
tachometer unit agree with the cycles counted by the primary counting
method.''
    We also changed paragraph (e)(4) of this AD to clearly state that
the ground-run functional check required every 1,000 operating hours is
in addition to the daily inspections required by this AD. The NPRM (77
FR 73557, December 11, 2012) stated:
    ``If the engine tachometer cycle-counting feature remains accurate,
then every 1,000 operating hours, perform a ground-run functional check
of the tachometer unit cycle-counting feature.''
    The changed paragraph in this AD states:
    ``If the engine tachometer cycle-counting feature remains accurate,
then every 1,000 operating hours, perform a ground-run functional check
of the tachometer unit cycle-counting feature in addition to the daily
inspections required in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. If the tachometer
cycle-counting feature fails the check, thereafter, use only the
primary cycle-counting method to count cycles.''

Changes to Cost of Compliance

    We also changed the Costs of Compliance section of this AD.
Paragraph (e)(4) of this AD requires a functional check of the
tachometer cycle counting feature every 1,000 operating hours. The NPRM
(77 FR 73557, December 11, 2012) did not include the cost of the
functional check in the estimated annual costs of compliance, while
this AD does include that cost. The fleet cost for the functional check
every 1,000 operating hours is $181,050, bringing the new total
estimated fleet cost of compliance for this AD to $19,493,050.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that the changes we have made, that is, the
change based on revised MCAI and the editorial changes made to improve
clarity, will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 1,420 engines installed
in helicopters of U.S. registry. We do not have an estimate of how many
engine tachometers will fail the inspection, so we have estimated the
cost of repetitive inspections of engine tachometer units for one year
and the cost of a required 1000-hour functional check. We estimate that
an average of 320 checks will be required per year, and that it will
take about 30 minutes per engine to perform a check of the engine's
tachometer unit cycle-counting feature. We estimate the 1,000-
operating-hour functional check to take 1.5 hours to complete. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. No parts will be required. Based on
these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD on U.S. operators
to be $19,493,050.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-08-22 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-17440; Docket No. FAA-2012-
1131; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-34-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 28, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1,
1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines that have
incorporated Modification TU 207 or TU 243, or have incorporated
Turbomeca Service Bulletin (SB) No. 292 80 0168 or SB No. 292 80
0190.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by detailed analysis and review of the
accuracy of the engine's tachometer cycle-counting feature. We are
issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to
the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    (1) If a tachometer is installed on the engine, but is not used
to count cycles, then no further action is required.
    (2) During the post-flight maintenance inspection after the last
flight of each day, verify that the cycles counted by the engine's
tachometer unit agree with the cycles counted by the primary
counting method.
    (3) If the numbers are different, use the primary counting
method thereafter to determine all cycle counts. Do not use the
values from the tachometer cycle-counting feature.
    (4) If the engine tachometer cycle-counting feature remains
accurate, then every 1,000 operating hours, perform a ground-run
functional check of the tachometer unit cycle-counting feature in
addition to the daily inspections in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD. If
the tachometer cycle-counting feature fails the check, thereafter,
use only the primary cycle-counting method to count cycles.
    (5) If the tachometer is replaced, follow the instructions in
paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjana Murthy,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0187R2,
dated December 6, 2012, and Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 292 80 0168 and SB
No. 292 80 0190, for related information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0) 5 59 74 40 00;
telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0) 5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 16, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09349 Filed 4-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59763]
[DOCID:fr11oc06-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-617-000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

October 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed on
Appendix A attached to the filing, to become effective November 1,
2006.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16774 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68499-68501]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87704; File No. SR-BOX-2019-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') Facility To Remove the
QOO Order Rebate Cap

December 10, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 27, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'')
facility. While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on
December 2, 2019. The text of the proposed rule change is available
from the principal office of the

Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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 Exchange proposes to amend Section II.C (QOO Order Rebate) of
the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove the
monthly rebate cap of $30,000 per month per Broker Dealer. Currently,
Floor Brokers are eligible to receive a $0.075 per contract rebate for
all QOO Orders executed on the BOX Trading Floor. The rebate is not
applied to Public Customer executions, executions subject to the
Strategy QOO Order Fee Cap, or Broker Dealer executions where the
Broker Dealer is facilitating a Public Customer.
    The Exchange notes that it is not making any other changes to the
QOO Order Rebate, and that the QOO rebate will continue to apply to
both sides of the paired QOO Order. The rebate will not apply to Public
Customer executions, executions subject to the Strategy QOO Order Fee
Cap, or Broker Dealer executions where the Broker Dealer is
facilitating a Public Customer.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BOX established the QOO Order Rebate program and the monthly rebate
cap in August 2017.\6\ As discussed in the 2017 proposal to establish
the QOO Order Rebate program and rebate cap, the rebate was created to
incentivize order flow to the BOX Trading Floor. Unlike competing
exchanges, the Exchange does not offer a front-end order entry on the
BOX Trading Floor. With this Participants have two possible means of
bringing orders to the Exchange's Trading Floor for possible execution:
(1) They can invest in the technology, systems and personnel to
participate on the Trading Floor and deliver the order to the Exchange
matching engines for validation and execution; or (2) they can utilize
the services of another Participant acting as a Floor Broker. The QOO
Order Rebate program was established to attract order flow by rewarding
Floor Brokers with rebates for directing qualifying orders to the BOX
Trading Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-81504 (August
30, 2017), 82 FR 42195 (September 6, 2017) (SR-BOX-2017-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now believes that removing the rebate cap is
reasonable, because it will continue to allow Floor Brokers to price
their services at a level that would enable them to attract increased
QOO order flow from market participants who might otherwise utilize the
front-end order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors,
instead of incurring the cost in time and resources to install and
develop their own internal systems to deliver QOO orders directly to
the Exchange system. As such, the Exchange believes it is beneficial
from a competitive standpoint to continue to offer the rebate to the
executing Floor Broker on a QOO order without capping the dollar amount
allowed for the rebate. Further, the Exchange believes removing the
rebate cap will encourage Floor Brokers to bring additional QOO order
flow to the Exchange because Floor Brokers will be further incentivized
by the removal of the QOO Order Rebate cap for these specific QOO
orders. Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable
and appropriate, as the Exchange is offering eligible participants
greater opportunities to lower their fees related to the execution of
qualifying QOO transactions.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that removing the QOO Order
Rebate cap is reasonable as a competing exchange with a similar rebate
program offered to Floor Brokers currently has a rebate cap twelve
times higher than the QOO Order Rebate cap on BOX.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, Qualified Contingent
Cross (``QCC'') Transactions Fees and Credits, Footnote 13 (stating
the ``maximum Floor Broker credit paid shall not exceed $375,000 per
month per Floor Broker firm.''). Similar to the Floor Broker Credit
for Executed QCC Transactions on NYSEArca, the QOO Order Rebate on
BOX is applied to both sides of the paired order and is directed to
the Floor Broker, and not to the Participant who is assessed the QOO
Order fee. Finally, similar to the BOX QOO Rebate, the NYSE Arca QCC
credit is only applied when the Floor Broker executes the QCC Order
manually on the NYSE Arca trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the removal of the rebate cap is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal allows
all similarly situated Floor Brokers to benefit from the removal of the
QOO Order Rebate cap. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that all
market participants would benefit from additional trading opportunities
generated from increased order flow due to the removal of the QOO Order
Rebate cap. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to remove the QOO Order rebate cap for Floor Brokers, as
the previous cap only applied to Floor Brokers and not to Floor Market
Makers. Floor Market Makers only represent their own interest on the
Trading Floor and thus do not need additional incentives.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to remove the QOO Order Rebate cap does not impose a burden on
competition. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which competitors are free to modify their own
fee schedules in response, and the Exchange believes that the degree to
which rebate increases impose any burden on competition is limited. As
noted above, one of the Exchange's competitors offers QCC credit cap
that is twelve times higher than the Exchange's QOO Order Rebate
cap.\8\ In addition, as mentioned above, the Floor Broker Credit for
QCC Transactions on NYSEArca is similar to the QOO Order Rebate on BOX
in that it is applied to both sides of the paired order and is directed
to the Floor Broker and not to the Participant who is assessed the QOO
Order fee. Moreover, similar to the BOX QOO Rebate, the NYSEArca QCC
credit is only applied when the Floor Broker

executes the QCC Order manually on the NYSEArca trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. See also NASDQ PHLX (``Phlx'') Pricing Schedule, Section
4 (stating the ``maximum QCC Rebate to be paid in a given month will
not exceed $550,000.''). The Exchange notes Phlx's QCC Rebate cap is
over eighteen times higher than the QOO Order Rebate cap on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange does not believe that removing the QOO Order
rebate cap will impose an undue burden on intra-market competition
because all Floor Brokers will remain eligible to transact QOO Orders
and receive the same rebate. Further, the Exchange believes that the
removal of the rebate cap will promote competition by allowing Floor
Brokers to competitively price their services and for the Exchange to
remain competitive with other exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2019-35 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-BOX-2019-35. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-35, and should be submitted on
or before January 6, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26987 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2427-2428]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0663]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0109

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0109,
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; without change.
    Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2020-0663. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    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. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments will help OIRA
determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2020-0663], and must be received by February 11,
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 to the Coast Guard 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 to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0109.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 66572, October 20, 2020)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Drawbridge Operation Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0109.
    Summary: The Bridge Program receives approximately 412 requests
from bridge owners per year to change the operating schedule of various
drawbridges across the navigable waters of the United States. The
information needed for the change to the operating schedule can only be
obtained from the bridge owner and is generally provided to the Coast
Guard in either written or electronic format.

    Need: 33 U.S.C. 499 authorizes the Coast Guard to change the
operating schedules of drawbridges that cross over navigable waters of
the United States.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: The public and private owners of bridges over
navigable waters of the United States.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 1,672 hours a year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: January 7, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-00408 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42562]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-432-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

July 11, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2008, Eastern Shore Natural Gas
Company (Eastern Shore), 417 Bank Lane, Dover, Delaware 19904, filed in
Docket No. CP08-432-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205(b), and 157.211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and its blanket authority
granted in Docket No. CP96-128-000 for authorization to construct, own,
and operate a new delivery point to be located in Sussex County,
Delaware, in order to provide natural gas service to INVISTA
S.[aacute].r.l. (INVISTA), all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Eastern Shore proposes to construct, own, and operate a new
delivery point to deliver natural gas to INVISTA to be located in
Sussex County, Delaware. Eastern Shore proposes to design and
construct, or cause the design and construction of, a six-inch tap and
valve and approximately 8,500 feet of six-inch steel pipe from an
existing point on its system to a new measuring and regulating (M&R)
station located at the INVISTA manufacturing facility. Eastern Shore
states that the proposed delivery point would supply one new boiler
which INVISTA is currently installing at its manufacturing facility
near the city of Seaford (Seaford Site). Eastern Shore asserts that
there will be no impact on Eastern Shore's peak day deliveries due to
the off-peak seasonal nature of the firm transportation (FT) service
subscribed to by INVISTA. Eastern Shore states that INVISTA responded
to Eastern Shore's recent notice of Available Firm Capacity pursuant to
Section 14 of its FERC Gas Tariff by submitting a bid for a Maximum
Daily Transportation Quantity (MDTQ) of 2,352 dekatherms per day (Dth/
d) for the non-peak months of March through October for a fifteen-year
term commencing May 1, 2009. Eastern Shore asserts that INVISTA will
reimburse Eastern Shore for the cost of the proposed facilities through
the FT rate specified in the FT Service Agreement. Eastern Shore states
that the total estimated cost of the proposed project is approximately
$1.9 million.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Glen
DiEleuterio, P.E., Project Manager, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company,
417 Bank Lane, Dover, Delaware 19904, or at<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension
6723.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16696 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10726-10727]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03041]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50 and 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0596; FRL-9959-28-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT22

Response to December 9, 2013, Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition
From Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that a
public hearing will be held for the proposed action titled, ``Response
to December 9, 2013, Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition from
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont,'' which published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 2017. The hearing will be held on March
14, 2017, in Washington, DC. The EPA is also announcing extension of
the comment period for the proposed action to April 13, 2017, to allow
sufficient time after the public hearing for the submission of
comments.

DATES: Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held on March 14,
2017, in Washington, DC. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for additional information on the public hearing.
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing. The March 14, 2017, public hearing will be
held at the EPA, William Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1117A,
1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Identification is
required. If your driver's license is issued by Kentucky, Maine,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina or
the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of
identification to enter (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
additional information on this location).
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0596, at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Docket Center
Reading Room, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, located at 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The phone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to speak at the
public hearing, please contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C504-01), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than March 10, 2017. If you
have any questions relating to the public hearing, please contact Ms.
Long at the above number.
    If you have questions concerning the January 19, 2017, proposed
action, please contact Ms. Gobeail McKinley, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Air Quality Planning Division (C539-01), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for which the EPA is holding
the public hearing was published in the Federal Register on January 19,
2017 (82 FR 6509), and is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/2008-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-section-176a-petitions and also in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0596.
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal. The EPA may
ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not
respond to presentations at that time. Written statements and
supporting information that are submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written
comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period.
    The public hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET) or at least two hours after the last registered
speaker has spoken. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all
individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A lunch break is
scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Please note that this hearing
will be held at a U.S. government facility. Individuals planning to
attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture
identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the
meeting room. The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established
new requirements for entering federal facilities. These requirements
took effect on July 21, 2014. If your driver's license is issued by
Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina or the state of Washington, you must present an
additional form of identification to enter the federal building where
the public hearing will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of
identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced
driver's licenses and military identification cards. For additional
information for the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to
http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. In addition, you will
need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring
with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return
this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed
in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building,

and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security
reasons.
    If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please
notify Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Air Quality Planning
Division (C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919)
541-0641, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no
later than 4:00 p.m. ET on March 10, 2017. Ms. Long will arrange a
general time slot for you to speak. The EPA will make every effort to
follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing.
    Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form. The EPA will
not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive
special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Ms. Long if they
will need specific equipment. Commenters should also notify Ms. Long if
they need specific translation services for non-English speaking
commenters.
    Prior to the hearing, the hearing schedule, including the list of
speakers, will be posted on the EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/2008-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-section-176a-petitions. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and
written statements will be included in the docket for the action.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for the proposed action ``Response
to December 9, 2013, Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition from
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont'' under Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0596 (available at: http://www.regulations.gov). The EPA
has made available information related to the proposed action on the
EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/2008-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-section-176a-petitions.

    Dated: February 9, 2017.
Stephen Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-03041 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10447]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03169]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0414, EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0424, EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0425,
EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0432; FRL-9906-49-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties; 1997
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision to Approved Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve requests by Indiana to revise the
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality state implementation plan
(SIP) for Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties to
replace onroad emissions inventories and motor vehicle emissions
budgets (budgets) with inventories and budgets developed using EPA's
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. Indiana
submitted the SIP revision requests for Allen, Vigo, Vanderburgh, and
Warrick Counties on July 2, 2013, and submitted the SIP revision
request for Greene County on July 8, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0414 (Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties), EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0424
(Allen County), EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0425 (Greene County), EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0432 (Vigo County), by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 31, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-03169 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P