[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33598-33601]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0346]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; St. Mary's River, St. George Creek,
Piney Point, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish temporary special
local regulations for certain waters of the St. Mary's River. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters located at Piney Point, MD, during a high-speed power
boat demonstration event on October 2, 2021, and October 3, 2021. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in
the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Event Patrol
Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0346 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Southern Maryland Boat Club of Leonardtown, MD has notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Southern Maryland Boat Club
Piney Point Regatta from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 2, 2021, and from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 3, 2021. The high-speed power boat
demonstration event consists of approximately 55 participating vintage
and historic race boats--including runabouts, v-bottoms, tunnel hulls,
and hydroplanes--8 to 21 feet in length. The vessels will be
participating in an exhibition, operating in heats along a marked
racetrack-type course 1 mile in length and 150 feet in width, located
in the St. George Creek at Piney Point, MD. The regatta is not a
competition, but rather a demonstration of vintage race craft. Hazards
from the high-speed power boat demonstration event include participants
operating within and adjacent to designated navigation channels and
interfering with vessels intending to operate within those channels as
well as operating near approaches to local public boat landings. The
COTP, Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential
hazards associated with the high-speed power boat event would be a
safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and
for vessels that operate within specified waters of St. George Creek.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the
scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish
special local regulations from 7:30 a.m. on October 2, 2021, through 5
p.m. on October 3, 2021. The regulations would be enforced from 7:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 2, 2021, and from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
October 3, 2021. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of
St. George Creek within an area bounded by a line connecting the
following points: From the shoreline at Cedar Point at position
latitude 38[deg]09'03.4'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'55.7'' W; thence
south along the shoreline to Coade Bar at latitude 38[deg]08'22.5'' N,
longitude 076[deg]29'19.9'' W; thence southwest across St. George Creek
to Dodson Point at latitude 38[deg]08'03.8'' N, longitude
076[deg]29'44.6'' W; thence north along the shoreline and the eastern
extent of the St. George Island (SR-249) Bridge to Long Bar (at the
entrance to St. George Harbor) at latitude 38[deg]30'13.0''19'16.0'' N,
longitude 076[deg]08'50.6'' W; thence northeast across St. George Creek
to and terminating at the point of origin. The regulated area is
approximately 1,750 yards in length and 940 yards in width.
    This proposed rule provides additional information about areas
within the regulated area and their definitions and the restrictions
that would apply to mariners. These areas include ``Race Area,''
``Buffer Area,'' and ``Spectator Area.''
    The proposed duration of the special local regulations and size of
the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed power boat
event scheduled to take place from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 2, 2021,
and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 3, 2021. The COTP and the Coast
Guard Event PATCOM would have authority to forbid and control the
movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in
the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a
vessel or person in the regulated area would be required to immediately
comply with the directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM. If a
person or vessel fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may
expel them from the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    Except for Southern Maryland Boat Club Piney Point Regatta
participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person would be
required to get permission from the COTP or Event PATCOM before
entering the regulated area. Vessel operators would be able to request
permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by
contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic would
be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Event PATCOM
deems it safe to do so. A vessel within the regulated area must operate
at a safe speed that minimizes wake. A person or vessel not registered
with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols
would be considered a spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel
assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. Official Patrols
enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 and
channel 22A.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or
vessel would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to
operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated
area in a manner

that would not endanger event participants or any other craft. A
spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while
within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels would direct
spectators to the designated spectator area. Only participant vessels
and official patrol vessels would be allowed to enter the race area.
The Coast Guard would publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated
area of St. George Creek for 19 total enforcement hours. This waterway
supports mainly recreational vessel traffic, which at its peak, occurs
during the summer season. Although this regulated area extends across
the entire width of the waterway, the rule would allow vessels and
persons to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel
traffic that is able to do so safely would be able to transit the
regulated area on the eastern portion of the waterway away from the
event area as instructed by Event PATCOM. Such vessels must operate at
safe speed that minimizes wake and not loiter within the navigable
channel while within the regulated area. Moreover, the Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the status of the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore
side activities in the event area for 19 total enforcement hours.
Normally, such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a

significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0346 in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, look for this document in
the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
0
2. Add Sec.  100.T05-0346 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0346   Southern Maryland Boat Club Piney Point Regatta,
St. Mary's River, St. George Creek, Piney Point, MD.

    (a) Locations. All coordinates are based on datum NAD 1983.
    (1) Regulated area. All navigable waters of St. George Creek,
within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: from
the shoreline at Cedar Point at position latitude 38[deg]09'03.4'' N,
longitude 076[deg]29'55.7'' W; thence south along the shoreline to
Coade Bar at latitude 38[deg]08'22.5'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'19.9''
W; thence southwest across St. George Creek to Dodson Point at latitude
38[deg]08'03.8'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'44.6'' W; thence north along
the shoreline and the eastern extent of the St. George Island (SR-249)
Bridge to Long Bar (at the entrance to St. George Harbor) at latitude
38[deg]08'50.6'' N, longitude 076[deg]30'13.0'' W; thence northeast
across St. George Creek to and terminating at the point of origin. The
race area, buffer area, and spectator area are within the regulated
area.
    (2) Race area. The race area is a polygon in shape measuring
approximately 560 yards in length by 240 yards in width. The area is
bounded by a line commencing near Hodgson Point at position latitude
38[deg]08'38.22'' N, longitude 076[deg]30'02.48'' W, thence southeast
to latitude 38[deg]08'24.43'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'50.71'' W; thence
southwest to latitude 38[deg]08'20.40'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'58.16''
W, thence northwest to latitude 38[deg]08'34.26'' N, longitude
076[deg]30'09.97'' W; thence northeast to and terminating at the point
of origin.
    (3) Buffer area. The buffer area is a polygon in shape measuring
approximately 270 feet in all directions surrounding the entire race
area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The area is bounded
by a line commencing near Hodgson Point at position latitude
38[deg]08'42.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]30'01.6'' W; thence southeast to
latitude 38[deg]08'23.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'46.0'' W, thence
southwest to latitude 38[deg]08'16.7'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'59.0''
W; thence northwest to latitude 38[deg]08'34.9'' N, longitude
076[deg]30'14.7'' W, thence northeast to and terminating at the point
of origin.
    (4) Spectator area. The designated spectator area is a polygon in
shape with its length measuring approximately 475 yards and its width
measuring approximately 300 yards at its northern portion and 50 yards
at it southern portion. The area is bounded by a line commencing at
position latitude 38[deg]08'47.2'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'52.9'' W;
thence southeast to latitude 38[deg]08'41.9'' N, longitude
076[deg]29'47.5'' W; thence southwest to latitude 38[deg]08'37.8'' N,
longitude 076[deg]29'55.3'' W; thence southeast to latitude
38[deg]08'31.3'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'50.1'' W, thence southwest to
latitude 38[deg]08'30.4'' N, longitude 076[deg]29'51.7'' W; thence
northwest to latitude 38[deg]08'42.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]30'01.6''
W, thence northeast to and terminating at the point of origin.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Buffer area is a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the
race area within the regulated area described by this section. The
purpose of a buffer area is to minimize potential collision conflicts
with marine event participants or high-speed power boats and spectator
vessels or nearby transiting vessels. This area provides separation
between a race area and a specified Spectator Area or other vessels
that are operating in the vicinity of the regulated area established by
the special local regulations.
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Event Patrol Commander or Event PATCOM means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the ``Southern Maryland Boat Club Piney
Point Regatta'' event, or otherwise designated by the event sponsor as
having a function tied to the event.

    Race area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a race
area within the regulated area defined by this section.
    Spectator means a person or vessel not registered with the event
sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols.
    Spectator area is an area described by a line bound by coordinates
provided in latitude and longitude that outlines the boundary of a
spectator area within the regulated area defined by this part.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or Event PATCOM may forbid and control the movement of
all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated
area shall immediately comply with the directions given by the patrol.
Failure to do so may result in the Coast Guard expelling the person or
vessel from the area, issuing a citation for failure to comply, or
both. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM may
terminate the event, or a participant's operations at any time the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM believes it necessary
to do so for the protection of life or property.
    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person
or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission
to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM,
and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be
contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and
channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must
enter the designated Spectator Area or pass directly through the
regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. A vessel within the
regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A
spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while
within the regulated area.
    (4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter and remain within the race area.
    (5) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are
allowed to enter and transit directly through the buffer area in order
to arrive at or depart from the race area.
    (6) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor
within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM. A person or vessel
seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (7) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates
and times.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
federal, state, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 2, 2021 and from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
October 3, 2021.

    Dated: June 15, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-13291 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59006-59007]
[DOCID:fr08oc08-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58692; File No. SR-ISE-2008-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Cancellation Fees

September 30, 2008.
    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 September 23, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees regarding its
cancellation fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
the Exchange.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the ISE's
cancellation fee. The Exchange currently has a cancellation fee of
$1.75 that applies to Electronic Access Members (``EAMs'') that
cancelled at least 500 orders in a month, for each order cancellation
in excess of the total number of orders such member executed that
month. Further, all orders from the same clearing EAM executed in the
same series on the same side of the market at the same price within a
30 second period are aggregated and counted as one executed order for
purposes of this fee. This fee is currently charged only to customer
orders; broker-dealer orders, including non-member market maker (FARMM)
orders, are excluded from this fee. The Exchange notes that the level
of activity in the cancellation of orders continues to remain quite
large. The fee currently charged by the Exchange is insufficient to
offset the cost of administering and processing the large number of
cancellations on a monthly basis. The Exchange, therefore, proposes to
increase its cancellation fee from $1.75 to $2.00. This fee increase
will enable the ISE to recoup some of the costs of administering and
processing cancelled orders. This proposed fee change will be operative
on October 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities. In particular, the

Exchange believes increasing its cancellation fees is reasonable and
equitable in that it will allow the Exchange to recoup some of the
costs of administering and processing cancelled orders.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-70 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-ISE-2008-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-70 and should be
submitted on or before October 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23760 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35652-35656]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14566]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0323; FRL-9686-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee:
Bristol; Determination of Attainment for the 2008 Lead Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2012, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted
a request to EPA to make a determination that the Bristol nonattainment
area for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
standard) has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. In this action, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Bristol nonattainment area (hereafter
also referred to as the ``Bristol Area'' or ``Area'') has attained the
2008 lead NAAQS. This proposed determination of attainment is based
upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring
data for the 2009--2011 period showing that the Area has monitored
attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is further proposing that, if
EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attainment, the
requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration,
together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so
long as the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0323, 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: EPA-R04-OAR-2012-023, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0323. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Scofield or Richard Wong,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

Mr. Scofield may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mr. Wong may be reached by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2008 Lead NAAQS
IV. Does the Bristol area meet the 2008 lead NAAQS?
    A. Criteria
    B. Bristol Area Air Quality
V. What is the effect of these actions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Bristol Area (comprising the
portion of Sullivan County bounded by a 1.25 kilometer radius
surrounding the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 4042923
meters E, 386267 meters N, Zone 17, which surrounds the Exide
Technologies Facility) has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. This proposal
is based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2009-2011 monitoring period that show that the
Area has monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Further, EPA is proposing that, if this proposed determination of
attainment is made final, the requirements for the Bristol Area to
submit an attainment demonstration together with RACM, a RFP plan, and
contingency measures for failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines
would be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2008
lead NAAQS. As discussed below, EPA's proposal is consistent with EPA's
regulations and with its longstanding interpretation of subpart 1 of
part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
    If this proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal
Register, that the Area has violated the 2008 lead NAAQS, the basis for
the suspension of these attainment planning requirements would no
longer exist for the Bristol Area, and the Area would thereafter have
to address such requirements.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary
and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) based on a maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-
year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA
published its initial air quality designations and classifications for
the 2008 lead NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those
monitors for calendar years 2007-2009. These designations became
effective on December 31, 2010.\1\ The Bristol Area was designated
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA completed a second and final round of designations for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS on November 22, 2011. See 76 FR 72097. No
additional areas in Sullivan County, Tennessee were designated as
nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 4, 2012, the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted a
request to EPA to make a determination that the Bristol Area for the
2008 lead NAAQS has attained that standard based on complete, quality-
assured, quality-controlled monitoring data from 2009 through 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This Area has ambient air monitoring data for forty-seven
(47) months for the period of February 2008 through December 31,
2011, which show attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. Preliminary 2012
data indicates that this Area is continuing to attain the 2008 lead
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2008 Lead NAAQS

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the general preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA indicated
its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to the PM2.5
NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page, Director, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
    Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 1996) (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000)
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour
ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003) (St Louis, Missouri, 1-hour ozone);
69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco Bay Area, 1-hour ozone), 75
FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1-hour ozone), 75
FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California, PM10).
    EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and
considered rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and have
consistently upheld them. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir.
1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our
Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos. 06-75831
and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)). EPA sets
forth below a brief explanation of the Clean Data Policy. EPA also
incorporates the discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior
rulemakings, including the PM2.5 implementation rulemaking.
See also 75 FR 31288 (June 3, 2010) (Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone),
75 FR 62470 (October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour
ozone), 75 FR 53219 (August 31, 2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997
8-hour ozone), 75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
1997 8-hour ozone), 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode
Island, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-
Racine and Sheboygan Areas, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 31273 (May 31,
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 33647 (June
9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 7145
(November 15, 2011) (Charlotte, North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-
hour ozone), 77 FR 31496 (May 29, 2012)

(Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone). See
also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point,
1997 PM2.5), 75 FR 230 (January 5, 2010) (Hickory-Morganton,
Lenoir, 1997 PM2.5), 75 FR 57186 (September 20, 2010)
(Birmingham, Alabama, 2006 PM2.5) 76 FR 12860 (March 9,
2011) (Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 1850
(April 5, 2011) (Rome, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 31239
(May 31, 2011) (Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997
PM2.5), 76 FR 31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997
PM2.5), 76 FR 36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia 1997
PM2.5), 76 FR 38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama
1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 5542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-
Ashland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR
60373 (September 29, 2011) (Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997
PM2.5), (November 18, 2011) (Charleston, West Virginia, 2006
PM2.5), 77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebonon-
Carlisle-York Allentown, Johnstown and Lancaster, 1997
PM2.5)
    The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not
applicable to areas that are attaining the NAAQS.\3\ As explained
below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an area
attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that
provides for: Attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably
available control measures; reasonable further progress; and
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines
for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subparts 1 and 5
contain the requirements relating to attainment of the lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for
attainment of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as
not applying to areas that have attained the standard. If an area has
attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan demonstrating
how the area will reach attainment. In the General Preamble (57 FR
13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide for attainment
would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since
``attainment will have been reached.'' See also Memorandum from John
Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
    A component of the attainment plan specified under section
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable''
(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see
General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment
demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer
applies. Furthermore, EPA has consistently interpreted this provision
to require only implementation of potential RACM measures that could
advance attainment.\4\ Thus, where an area is already attaining the
standard, no additional RACM measures are required. EPA' s
interpretation that the statute requires only implementation of RACM
measures that would advance attainment was upheld by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F. 3d
735, 743-745, 5th Cir. 2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 3d 155, 162-163, D.C.
Cir. 2002). See also the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, 68
FR 25418 (May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble, see
57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d
155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that state implementation plan (SIP)
provisions in nonattainment areas must require ``reasonable further
progress.'' The term ``reasonable further progress'' is defined in
section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, by
definition, the ``reasonable further progress'' provision requires only
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that
the State will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable
further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment by the attainment date, it has no need to rely on
contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further
progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: ``The
section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564.
Thus these requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the
standard.
    It is important to note that should an area attain the lead
standards based on 3 years of data, its obligation to submit an
attainment demonstration and related planning submissions is suspended
only for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. If EPA
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the
Area has violated the 2008 lead NAAQS, the requirements for the State
to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements would be
reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area remains
designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation action.

IV. Does the Bristol area meet the 2008 lead NAAQS?

A. Criteria

    Today's proposed rulemaking assesses whether Bristol Area has
attained the 2008 Lead NAAQS, based on the most recent 3 years of
quality-assured data. The Bristol Area comprises the portion of
Sullivan County bounded by a 1.25 kilometer radius surrounding the UTM
coordinates 4042923 meters E, 386267 meters N, Zone 17, which surrounds
the Exide Technologies Facility.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and
secondary lead standards are met when the maximum arithmetic 3-month
mean concentration for a 3-year period, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.

B. Bristol Area Air Quality

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Bristol
Area in

accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix R. All data
considered are complete, quality-assured, certified, and recorded in
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. This review addresses air
quality data collected in 3-year period of 2009-2011 which are the most
recent quality-assured data available.
    40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, Section 4.5, states that ``At a
minimum, there must be one source-oriented State and Local Air
Monitoring Station site located to measure the maximum Pb [lead]
concentration in ambient air resulting from each non-airport Pb source
which emits 0.50 or more tons per year * * *.'' The Exide Technologies
facility in Bristol is responsible for operating the monitors that meet
this requirement. EPA's review shows that Exide has been exceeding the
minimum monitoring requirement of one monitor, and is currently
operating three Federal reference method (FRM) source-oriented monitors
at the facility, which meet the quality assurance requirements of 40
CFR part 58, Appendix A. In addition, the State of Tennessee is also
operating one additional source-oriented FRM monitor (AQS ID 47-163-
3004, identified in Table 1) at the Exide facility. The State's monitor
originally operated from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 (AQS
ID 47-163-4002). Beginning January 1, 2010, Tennessee's monitor was
relocated 0.3 miles to its current location, approximately 10 feet from
Exide's design value monitor (47-163-3001), which is an area of
expected maximum concentration at the site.
    Table 1 shows the 2009-2011 design values at the Bristol Area
monitors (the metrics calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix R, for determining compliance with the NAAQS) for the 2008
lead NAAQS. It also shows the maximum 3-month rolling average for each
individual year.

                              Table 1--Design Value for Monitors in the Bristol Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2009 Max 3-month  2010 Max 3-month  2011 Max 3-month  2009-2011 design
                           Location                                AQS site ID       rolling avg       rolling avg       rolling avg    value  ([micro]g/
                                                                                ([micro]g/m\3\)   ([micro]g/m\3\)   ([micro]g/m\3\)        m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
364 Exide Drive...............................................   \5\ 47-163-3001              0.09              0.08              0.06              0.09
                                                                     47-163-3002              0.06              0.04              0.04              0.06
                                                                     47-163-3003              0.06              0.04              0.05              0.06
                                                                     47-163-3004  ................              0.05              0.08  ................
                                                                     47-163-4002              0.04  ................  ................  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of these data indicates that the Bristol Area has
attained and continues to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, with a design
value of 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ for the period of 2009-2011. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to 40 CFR 58.12(b) ``For Pb manual methods, at
least one 24-hour sample must be collected every 6 days except
during periods or seasons exempted by the Regional Administrator.''
All three Exide monitors met and exceeded this requirement, and
collected a sample every three days. EPA also publishes an annual
recommended national sampling calendar, which contains suggested
days of the week for sampling. While this schedule is recommended,
it is not a CFR requirement. From March 30, 2011-November 23, 2011,
the Exide facility's monitors inadvertently operated on a schedule
that deviated from the recommended national schedule by one day of
the week. However, since the monitors still collected a sample every
six days, the data collection requirements were met by all three
Exide monitors for the Area. EPA has thus counted the samples
collected using the alternate sampling schedule as creditable
samples and calculated valid design values supporting a clean data
determination for the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is the effect of these actions?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Bristol Area has attained
the 2008 lead NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured and certified
data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available for 2012 indicates that
the area continues to be in attainment. EPA further proposes that, if
its proposed determination of attainment is made final, the
requirements for the Bristol Area to submit an attainment demonstration
and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain the 2008 lead
NAAQS. EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping with its long-held
interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations
for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918) and fine
particulate matter (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)). As described below, any
such determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation of the
Area to attainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a
redesignation of the Area to attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS under
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further, finalizing this proposed action
does not involve approving a maintenance plan for the Area as required
under section 175A of the CAA, nor would it find that the Area has met
all other requirements for redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the
proposed action, the Bristol Area would remain designated nonattainment
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that the Area
meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes
action to redesignate the Area.
    If the Bristol Area continues to monitor attainment of the 2008
lead NAAQS, EPA proposes that the requirements for the Bristol Area to
submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment
of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended. If this
proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the Area
has violated the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of these
attainment planning requirements would no longer exist for the Bristol
Area, and the Area would thereafter have to address such requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and
to suspend certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). Because this rule proposes to
make a determination based on air quality data and to suspend certain
Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed
rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
only proposes to make a determination based on air quality data and
suspend certain Federal requirements, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it proposes to determine that air quality in the affected area is
meeting Federal standards. The requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply because it would be inconsistent with applicable law
for EPA, when determining the attainment status of an area, to use
voluntary consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality
standards and monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the
provisions of the CAA. This proposed rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Under Executive Order
12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a proposed determination of
attainment based on air quality data and will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-
income.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Lead, Reporting
and Recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 5, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-14566 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70078-70080]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0201]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 15 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective November 16, 2010. The exemptions
expire on November 16, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On September 9, 2010, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (75 FR 54958). That notice listed 15 applicants' case
histories. The 15 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 15 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 15 exemption
applicants

listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the
vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia,
complete loss of vision, loss of an eye, macular scarring and
prosthesis. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. 11 of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood. The 4 individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods
ranging from 20 to 29 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. While
possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 15 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 4 to 45
years. In the past 3 years, 5 of the drivers were involved in crashes
or convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the September 9, 2010
notice (75 FR 54958).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 15 applicants, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, one of the applicants was cited for a cell phone violation,
one of the applicants had a traffic violation for an improper turn at
an intersection, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for
operating a CMV while uninsured and one of the applicants was involved
in a crash. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while
driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that
they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition.
As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision
deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes
their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 15 applicants listed in the notice of
September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54958).

    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 15 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. This comment was
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation stated that it was in
favor of granting a Federal vision exemption to Mark E. Lapp.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 15 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts James B. Bierschbach, John P. Catalano, Tyrone O. Friese, Randy
M. Lane, Mark E. Lapp, David S. Matheny, Frank G. Merrill, Shannon L.
Puckett, Leo S. Ruiz, Jr., Ronald B. Shafer, Thomas M. Sharp, Ranjodh
Singh, Kenneth M. Sova, Mark A. Thornton and Earl L. White, Jr., from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the
requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: November 8, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-28712 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 65497-65498]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Science Board Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Science Board to the Food and Drug
Administration (Science Board).
    General Function of the Committee: The Science Board provides
advice primarily to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and other
appropriate officials on specific complex and technical issues, as well
as emerging issues within the scientific community in industry and
academia. Additionally, the Science Board provides advice to the agency
on keeping pace with technical and scientific evolutions in the fields
of regulatory science, on formulating an appropriate research agenda,
and on upgrading its scientific and research facilities to keep pace
with these changes. It will also provide the means for critical review
of agency sponsored intramural and extramural scientific research
programs.

DATES:  Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Monday, November 15,
2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Rd., Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Martha Monser, Office of the Commissioner, Food and
Drug Administration, WO Bldg. 32, rm. 4286, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-
date information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register
about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced
advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to
provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's
Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone
line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: The Science Board will receive information from the ongoing
review of the Pharmacovigilance Program at the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER). The Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (CFSAN) will present its evaluation and review of the final
report of the CFSAN Research Review Subcommittee of the Science Board
to the Food and Drug Administration and provide an overview of its
strategic plan. New information and updates will be provided concerning
FDA's activities in support of Comparative Effectiveness Research. In
addition, the Board will be provided with updates on the development
and broad priorities of FDA's Strategic Science Plan, and the FDA
Medical Countermeasures Initiative, including planning for its
regulatory science component.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the

meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the
location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material
will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material
is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
Monday, November 8, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be
scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to
make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before Friday, October 29, 2010. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by Monday, November 1, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Martha Monser, at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisory Committee/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: October 15, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-26828 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32624-32625]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13269]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13214-003]

Lock 12 Hydro Partners; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major License (5 Megawatts or less).

    b. Project No.: 13214-003.
    c. Date filed: May 16, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Lock 12 Hydro Partners, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Ravenna Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Kentucky River, near the Town of Ravenna,
Estill County Kentucky. Lands managed by the Federal government are
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David Brown Kinloch, Lock 12 Hydro Partners,
414 S. Wenzel Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40204,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: July 15, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Ravenna Project consists of: (1) An existing concrete lock
and dam; (2) an existing 345-acre reservoir having a storage capacity
of 3,450-acre-feet; (3) a powerhouse within the abandoned lock chamber
containing four generating units for a total installed capacity of
2,640 kilowatts; and (4) a 1,500-foot-long, 12.47 kilo-Volt
transmission line. The project is estimated to generate an average of
10,673,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The dam and existing project
facilities are owned by the Kentucky River Authority.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR
800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Notice of Acceptance--July 2012
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--August 2012
Comments on Scoping Document 1--October 2012
Issue Scoping Document 2--January 2013
Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis--January 2013
Commission issues EA, draft EA, or draft EIS--July 2013
Comments on EA or draft EA or draft EIS--August 2013
Commission issues final EA or final EIS--October 2013

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13269 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51818-51819]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has

received the applications described herein. This notice is abbreviated
to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected,
modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown
in earlier Federal Register publications, they are not repeated here.
Requests for modification of special permits (e.g. to provide for
additional hazardous materials, packaging design changes, additional
mode of transportation, etc.) are described in footnotes to the
application number. Application numbers with the suffix ``M'' denote a
modification request. These applications have been separated from the
new application for special permits to facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2013.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2013.
Don Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Regulation(s)     Nature of Special Permit
   Application No.          Docket No.             Applicant             Affected                Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10232-M.............  ......................  ITW Sexton Decatur,  49 CFR 173.304(d)    To modify the special
                                               AL.                  and 173.306(a)(3).   permit to authorize a
                                                                                Division 2.1 material
11373-M.............  ......................  Marlin Company,      49 CFR 177.848(d)..  To modify the special
                                               Inc. Lenoir, NC.                          permit to authorize 1H2
                                                                                drums as additional
                                                                                packaging.
14188-M.............  ......................  IDQ Operating Inc.   49 CFR 173.304(d),   To modify the special
                                               Tarrytown, NY.       173.306(a)(3) and    permit to reflect
                                                                    178.33a.             current statutes and
                                                                                regulations pertaining
                                                                                to consumer
                                                                                commodities.
14770-M.............  ......................  Nova Chemicals       49 CFR 173.242.....  To modify the special
                                               Corporation Moon                          permit to reference
                                               Township, PA.                             Silvan Industries'
                                                                                portable tank drawings
                                                                                in paragraph 7.a. of
                                                                                the special permit.
14867-M.............  ......................  GTM Manufacturing,   49 CFR 173.302a and  To modify the special
                                               LLC Amarillo, TX.    173.304.             permit to authorize a
                                                                                30 year service life
                                                                                for the cylinders.
15797-M.............  ......................  Veolia ES Technical  49 CFR 172.320 and   To modify the special
                                               Solutions, L.L.C.    173.56(b).           permit originally
                                               Flanders, NJ.                             issued on an emergency
                                                                                basis to routine with a
                                                                                two year renewal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-20267 Filed 8-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P