Initial distribution system evaluation  Studies conducted by Community Water Systems which are intended to select new compliance monitoring sites that more accurately reflect sites representing high TTHM and HAA5 levels. The studies are based on either on system specific monitoring or other system specific data that provides equivalent or better information on site selection.

Locational running annual average ( LRAA)  RAAs ( see below) calculated for each sample location in the distribution system which must be below the compliance levels ( MCLs) in each quarter of the year. B 2 Log credits  The logarithmic range of credit given for water system treatment and management options employed, e. g., reducing pathogen loading into the plant, pretreatment processes, additional pathogen barriers, etc.

Log removal  The logarithm of the reduction in microbial density due to an action. For example 90% removal corresponds to 1 log removal.

Markov Chain Monte Carlo  A method to obtain a sample from the posterior distribution of the parameters in a Bayesian hierarchical model that involves both Monte Carlo integration, to handle high dimensional, intractable integrals and construction of Markov chains to draw these samples. The posterior distribution is used to make inferences about parameters in the model and to do predictions.

Microbial tool box options  Water systems will choose technologies to comply with additional treatment requirements from a ` toolbox' of options, e. g., pretreatment of water or improved disinfection.

PCR ( Polymerase chain reaction)  The process of rapidly amplifying a defined region of DNA by sequential steps of denaturation and replication.

Priors or Prior Distributions  Previous probability assessments of existing data used to estimate occurrence under new conditions.

Posterior Probabilities  Estimates of occurrence under new conditions produced using prior distributions.

Running annual average ( RAA)  Quarterly measurements of various sampling points in a water distribution which are averaged over the year to provide a average which is compared against the Maximum Contaminant Levels ( MCLs) for TTHM and HAA5.

Surface Water Analytical Tool  Model used in conjunction with the ICR data to predict the impact of potential new standards for DBPs and/ or pathogens on shifts in treatment technologies among water systems and resulting DBP exposure profiles.

Waterborne Disease Outbreak A waterborne disease outbreak occurs when two or more persons experience a similar illness after consumption or use of water intended for drinking and epidemiologic evidence implicates the water as the source of illness. This outbreak is reported by the authorities. Also, a single case of chemical poisoning constitutes an outbreak if laboratory studies indicate that the water has been contaminated by the chemical. Only outbreaks associated with water intended for drinking are included. C 1 ATTACHMENT C BIOSKETCHES OF THE DRINKING WATER COMMITTEE MEMBERS Science Advisory Board ( SAB) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Mary E. Davis: Dr. Mary E. Davis is a Professor of Toxicology in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology at West Virginia University Health Sciences Center. Her research interests are in the mechanisms of toxicity, focusing on renal and cardiovascular systems and liver and emphasizing agents of environmental and occupational interest, including halomethanes and disinfection by products. She earned a doctorate in Pharmacology from Michigan State University in 1977.

Dr. Davis is a member of the Editorial Board of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, and has served on the Editorial Board of Toxicology. She served as Treasurer for the Society of Toxicology. Dr. Davis previously served on two NRC Subcommittees on the health effects of disinfectants and their by products and use of physiologically based pharmacokinetics in risk assessment. She served as an external reviewer of EPA's risk assessment of the WTI hazardous waste incinerator and of EPA's proposed guidelines for human health risk assessment protocol for hazardous waste incinerators. In addition to serving on the DWC, Dr. Davis has been the SAB Liaison to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council ( NDWAC) and was a member of the SAB's Chloroform Review Panel.

Dr. Ricardo DeLeon: Dr. De Leon is the Laboratory Manager for the Microbiology Unit of the Water Quality Laboratory of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Microbiology Unit consists of the Compliance, Development and Reservoir Management Teams. His area of expertise is water microbiology, methods development for detection of microorganisms in water, inactivation of pathogens by disinfection and removal by treatment technology. He is currently working primarily on drinking water but his expertise also includes water reuse and public health issues associated with water. He has been working in the area of water microbiology since 1983.

Dr. De Leon holds a Bachelor's of Science in Microbiology and a Ph. D. in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and did post doctoral training in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering of the University of North Carolina. He was also a faculty member at the University of California, Irvine Campus prior to joining Metropolitan Water District. He has been the principal or co principal investigator on 22 research grants on methods development, disinfection of microorganisms and microbial aspects of water treatment technology. He has published more than 29 journal articles and book chapters on pathogen detection in environmental samples. He is currently serving in the Drinking Water Committee of the Science Advisory Board to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and on the National Research Council Committee on Indicators of Pathogens in Water. C 2 Dr. Barbara Harper: Dr. Harper is an independent consultant in the areas of toxicology, risk assessment, CERCLA oversight, tribal water quality, and environmental management. She is affiliated with AESE, Inc ( www. aeseinc. com). AESE's clientele consists entirely of Tribes/ Alaska Natives. She is also an adjunct faculty member of Oregon State University's Public Health Department. Dr. Harper is a board certified toxicologist ( Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology, 1989). She received her B. A. degree cum laude with departmental honors in biology from Occidental College in 1970. She received her PhD in genetics from the University of Texas at Austin in 1974. She was on the faculty of the University of Texas Medical Branch ( UTMB) at Galveston in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health; Division of Genetic and Environmental Toxicology. She then took a position with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania' s Department of Environmental Resources, and developed and managed the Special Science and Resources Program. She taught risk assessment as an adjunct faculty member at Penn State Harrisburg during this time period as well. She was recruited by Battelle's Pacific Northwest National Lab as a program manager in risk assessment in 1993 ( Hanford), where she started working on tribal risk issues. She joined the Yakama Nation ERWM Program in 1997 and developed methods for tribal risk assessment methods now in use at DOE and EPA, and continues to develop tribally relevant methods for evaluating cumulative risks and impacts to tribal health and culture. Her research interests include contamination of fish and other tribal subsistence foods, the associated health effects, eco cultural and human health risk method development, nutrition, anthro toxicology, and tribal parameters for subsistence exposure assessment.

Dr. Irva Hertz Picciotto: Irva Hertz Picciotto, Ph. D., Professor. Dr. Hertz Picciotto received her Master's of Arts in Biostatistics, a Ph. D. in Epidemiology and a Master's of Public Health from the University of California, Berkeley. She has held positions as Assistant, Associate and Full Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and most recently joined the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Hertz Picciotto receives funding for research from the National Institutes of Health, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Medical Investigations of Neurodevelopmental Disorders ( M. I. N. D.) Institute, State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Health Effects Institute, the Hawaii Heptachlor Research and Education Foundation, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Hertz Picciotto serves on editorial boards for the two major journals in her field, namely Epidemiology and the American Journal of Epidemiology, as well as for Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. She served as Chair of the Institute of Medicine/ National Academy of Science's Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2000 committee, and is currently Chair of the IOM/ NAS Update 2002 committee. Dr. Hertz Picciotto is also a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the U. S. National Toxicology Program, the Food Safety in Europe Working Group sponsored by the International Life Sciences Institute, and the Carcinogen Identification Committee of the California Governor's Scientific Advisory Board. She is currently President of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, and was recently a delegate to the NIEHS sponsored U. S. Vietnam Scientific Conference on the C 3 Environmental and Health Effects of the Vietnam War. She founded the Center on Environmental Health and Susceptibility at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. For over ten years, she has taught methods for epidemiologic data analysis in Chapel Hill, and has taught courses on four continents. Dr. Hertz Picciotto has published seminal papers on the use of epidemiology in quantitative risk assessment and is internationally renowned for her work in this field, as well as occupationally related cancer, environmental exposures, reproductive outcomes, and methods for epidemiologic research.

Dr. Joseph R. Landolph: Dr. Joseph R. Landolph is currently Associate Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology and Pathology and a Member of the USC/ Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, in the Keck School of Medicine and Associate Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Toxicology, in the School of Pharmacy, with tenure, at the University of Southern California ( USC) in Los Angeles, California. Dr. Landolph received a B. S. degree in Chemistry from Drexel University in l971 and a Ph. D. in Chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley in l976, under the guidance of the late Professor Melvin Calvin, where he studied the metabolism of the chemical carcinogen, benzo( a) pyrene, and its ability to induce cytotoxicity in cultured mouse liver epithelial cells and morphological transformation in Balb/ c 3T3 mouse fibroblasts. Dr. Landolph performed postdoctoral study in chemical carcinogenesis and chemically induced morphological and neoplastic cell transformation and mutagenesis at the USC/ Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Southern California under the late Professor Charles Heidelberger from l977 l980. Dr. Landolph was appointed Assistant Professor of Pathology in l980, and Associate Professor of Microbiology, Pathology, and Toxicology at USC in l987. Dr. Landolph has served as a grant reviewer for the U. S. E. P. A. Health Effects Panel, for special RFAs for the N. I.. E. H. S., and as an ad hoc member for the Chemical Pathology Study Section and the Al Tox 4 Study Section of the N. I. H. Dr. Landolph has also been a member of the Carcinogen Identification Committee reporting to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of the California Environmental Protection Agency from 1994 2002. He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Merck Award in Chemistry and the Superior Cadet Award in ROTC from Drexel University in l971, the Edmundson Teaching Award in the Dept. of Pathology at USC in l985, a Traveling Lectureship Award from the U. S. Society of Toxicology in l990, and a competitive American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowship from l977 l979. Dr. Landolph receives funding from the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association ( NiPERA), from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of the Environmental Protection Agency of the State of California.

Dr. Landolph's research interests and activities include studies of the genetic toxicology and carcinogenicity of carcinogenic insoluble nickel compounds, carcinogenic chromium compounds, carcinogenic arsenic compounds, and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. His laboratory is focused on studying the ability of these carcinogens to induce morphological and neoplastic transformation of C3H/ 10T1/ 2 mouse embryo cells and the cellular and molecular biology of the transformation process. His laboratory is currently studying the ability of carcinogenic nickel compounds to induce activation of expression of C 4 oncogenes and inactivation of expression of tumor suppressor genes in cells transformed by insoluble carcinogenic nickel compounds, such as nickel subsulfide, crystalline nickel monosulfide, and green ( high temperature) and black ( low temperature) nickel oxides. His laboratory is also studying the molecular biology of chromium compound induced cell transformation and the role of valence in cell transformation by various chromium containing compounds. Dr. Landolph is an expert in chemically induced morphological and neoplastic transformation and chemically induced mutation in murine and human fibroblasts. He is the author of 32 peer reviewed scientific publications, 21 book chapters/ review articles, and has held peer reviewed research grant support from the U. S. E. P. A., the U. S. National Cancer Institute, and the U. S. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Dr. David L. Sedlak: Dr. David L. Sedlak is Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Sedlak received has B. S. degree in Environmental Science from Cornell University in 1986. He received his Ph. D. degree in Water Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in Madison in 1992 and served as a postdoctoral researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology ( EAWAG) from 1992 to 1994. He has received several notable awards including the NSF CAREER Award in 1997, the Hellman Family Faculty Award in 1996 and the American Chemical Society Graduate Student Award in 1991. His areas of research interest include analytical methods for measuring organic compounds in water, fate of chemical contaminants in water recycling systems, metal speciation and its effect on metal uptake and reaction, environmental photochemistry and ecological engineering. David Sedlak receives research funding from federal ( i. e., National Science Foundation) and state ( i. e., University of California Water Resources Program, University of California Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program) programs. He also receives funding from a private foundation ( i. e., National Water Research Institute) and several water industry sponsored foundations ( i. e., American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Water Environment Research Foundation and WateReuse Foundation)

Dr. Philip C. Singer: Dr. Philip C. Singer is the Dan Okun Professor of Environmental Engineering in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering in the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He directed the Water Resources Engineering Program at UNC for 19 years and currently directs UNC's Drinking Water Research Center. He has conducted research on chemical aspects of water and wastewater treatment and on aquatic chemistry for the past 35 years, and has published more than 160 papers and reports in these areas. For the past 27 years, Dr. Singer's research has focused on the formation and control of disinfection by products in drinking water. In 1993, Dr Singer was selected for the Freese Lecture by the American Society of Civil Engineers, in 1995 he was given the A. P. Black Research Award by the American Water Works Association, and in 1999 he received the Fuller Award from the North Carolina section of the American Water Works Association.

Dr. Singer has been active in the American Water Works Association, serving as a past Chair and Trustee of the Research Division, and has served on the Research Advisory Council of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation. He was on the editorial board of C 5 Ozone Science and Engineering and is a past associate editor of Environmental Science and Technology. He was a member of the Water Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council, and served on the National Research Council's Committee on Drinking Water Contaminants. He is currently on the Board of Directors of the Water Environment Research Foundation and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board's Drinking Water Committee. In 1995, Dr. Singer was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering.

Dr. Laura Steinberg: Dr. Steinberg is Associate Professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department of Tulane University. She holds a B. S. E. in Civil and Urban Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and an M. S. and Ph. D. in Environmental Engineering from Duke University. Her research currently focuses on water quality modeling and natural hazards management. She has recently completed modeling studies of arsenic concentrations in water distribution systems and transport processes in contaminated sediments, and is working on spatial statistical modeling of heavy metals and PCB's in contaminated sediments. During the last two years, she has spent several months in Turkey, investigating the impacts of the devastating earthquake of 1999 on industrial infrastructure and the environment, and evaluating the effectiveness of chemical risk management procedures. Dr. Steinberg is the incoming chair of the American Society of Civil Engineer's National Environmental Policy Committee, and a past member of the ASCE's National Water Policy Committee. She serves on the Water Environment Federation's Disinfection Committee, and is a fellow of the Institute of Civil Infrastructure Systems and a former member of the Chapel Hill, NC Planning Board. She has consulted to the USEPA's Science Advisory Board on technology diffusion, and the Department of Energy on risk assessment. Prior to her work in academia, Dr. Steinberg was Environmental Engineering Department Head at the planning and engineering firm of Louis Berger International, and Business Development Manager at Geraghty and Miller, an environmental engineering firm. She also had the distinct honor of serving as a US Congressional Page while attending high school.

Ms. Susan Teefy: Susan Teefy currently serves on the staff of the Water Quality and Treatment Solutions, Inc. Susan formerly served as the Operations Engineer for the Alameda County Water District in Fremont California. Since 1992, she has worked with this public water agency to ensure compliance with drinking water regulations, and analyze and optimize plant operations. She has held positions of increasing authority with the District, including Manager of the Water Production Division, which is responsible for the operation and maintenance of three water treatment plants and the distribution system. Ms. Teefy has also supervised ACWD's Environmental Engineering section, where she developed and implemented water quality monitoring programs and conducted plant optimization studies. Her particular interest is surface water treatment ( particulate removal processes) and ozone disinfection. Prior to working with the Alameda County Water District, she worked at the East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland California, providing technical support for surface water treatment plant operations. Ms. Teefy also worked for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, in San Francisco where she managed the drinking water program on Indian Lands in California.

Ms. Teefy has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, and a master's degree in environmental engineering from the University of North C 6 Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is a registered civil engineer in the state of California, and a licensed water treatment plant operator ( Grade 5, highest level). In 1985 she was awarded USEPA's Bronze Medal for outstanding service for significantly improving compliance with drinking water regulations on California Indian Lands. In 1989 she was the first recipient of the AWWA Larson Aquatic Research Support ( LARS) Scholarship. In 1991 she received AWWA's Academic Achievement award for her Master's thesis. She has chaired AWWA's California Nevada Section Research Committee, and currently is a member of AWWA's national coagulation and filtration committee. Ms. Teefy has been a Project Advisory Committee member on several projects funded by the AWWA Research Foundation, and a peer reviewer for the Journal of AWWA. She has served on AWWARF's Unsolicited Proposal Review Committee, as well as AWWARF and EPA convened Expert Panels regarding water treatment issues. She has given numerous presentations at international AWWA and International Ozone Association conferences Dr. Gary A. Toranzos: Gary A. Toranzos is a professor of microbiology in the Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus. He got his Ph. D. in 1985 at the University of Arizona in Tucson. His research interests are varied and include water microbiology, the ecology of enteric pathogens and the development of indicators of risk. He has published extensively on all the above subjects and is currently working on projects dealing with bacterial nitrification and denitrification in soils, as well as development of new indicators of biological contamination in waters. Dr. Gary A. Toranzos receives funding from NASA to study nitrifying and denitrifying microbial communities in tropical soils. He also has funding from the USGS ( Water Resources Center, University of the U. S. Virgin Islands) to study the microbial water quality of bathing beaches in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, U. S. V. I.

He is currently working at the National Science Foundation as a Program Director in the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences.

He is an elected member of the American Academy of Microbiology, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is serving a term as member of the Technical Advisory Board of the Water Environment Research Foundation Dr. Rhodes Trussell: Dr. R. Rhodes Trussell is Director of the Water Knowledge Center and Senior Vice President at MWH, Inc. He has served in that Role since September 2001. For several years prior to that he served as the firm's Director of Corporate Development and as a member of the firm's Board of Directors. The bulk of Dr. Trussell's technical career has been spent advising municipal utilities, both in the US and abroad, concerning problems of drinking water quality and treatment. Dr. Trussell is active in American Water Works Association and in the International Water Association where he serves on the program committee, the Strategic Council and the editorial board for North America. He also serves on the Water Science and Technology Board for the National Resource Council where he has served on several specific Committees, most recently those on potable reuse, the CCL, and indicators for pathogens in water. Dr. Trussell serves on the Magazine Board for Environmental Science and Technology, as a member of the Industrial Advisory Board for Engineering program at UC Riverside and as Chair of the Industrial Advisory Board for the Department of Civil Engineering at UCLA. Dr. C 7 Trussell received his B. S.( 1966), M. S.( 1967), and Ph. D.( 1972) in Environmental Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1995 and serves on the Peer Committee for Civil Engineering. He is currently the Chair of the SAB's Drinking Water Committee.

For the past 30+ years, Dr. Trussell has worked for MWH, Inc. and is solely funded by the corporation. During the past year he as worked directly on projects for the city of Portland Oregon, for the East Bay Municipal Water District, for Hong Kong, the City of San Diego, the City of Long Beach, the Metropolitan Water district of Southern California, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY ~~~~~~

REGION111 PT ~~~~~

1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2028 Richard Brewster, Program Manager Department of Health Environmental Health Administration Lead Based Paint Abatement Program 800 9thStreet, S. W. 3rd floor , t 2.:; Washington, D. C. 20024  i. J . I%+ I. .~ Dear Mr. Brewster: ~~~~

OCT 3  1 FIB 1 6 1999 This is to formally request some additional information based on my review of the January 25, 1999state authorization application. Based on my conversation with Ms. Sandra Handon, I hereby request the following:

ILi. i . 1) Please submit a time line schedule which reflects implementationof the program as of March 1Td1 riW k. cc1.4eLN. i  1999.

I, ,. 2) Please provide a copy of the individual certification forms, for each of the necessary categorie r I pvME. de6   IscrJ 4% %

3) Please provide a copy of the3rd party exam vendor contract.  c&$

c c  Y, 4) Please include a new Table of Contents that also contains the new appendiceswhich were provided at the Jan 26,1999meeting with EPA.

:  bk5) Please provide a copy of the DC Code 06 997.1 If you have any questions, please contact me at ( 215) 814 2067.

Sincerely,

Toxics Programs and Enforcement Branch cc: S. Amold P. Cestone M. Coe A. Dickens D. Gallo S. Handon Customer Service Hdine: 1 800 438 2474


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40000]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0331]
RIN 1625-AA00

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Riverfront
Independence Festival Fireworks; Ohio River 607.0-609.0; New Albany, KY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone for the Riverfront
Independence Festival Fireworks on the Ohio River 607.0 to 609.0 from
9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2013. This action is necessary
for the safeguard of participants and spectators, including all crews,
vessels, and persons on navigable waters during the Riverfront
Independence Festival Fireworks. During the enforcement period, in
accordance with a previously established Safety Zone, entry into,
transiting through or anchoring in the Safety Zone is prohibited to all
vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official
patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call Petty Officer Second Class Catherine M. Lawson,
Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone
for the annual Riverfront Independence Festival Fireworks listed in 33
CFR 165.801 Table 1, Table No. 18; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 21 on July
3, 2013 from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the Safety Zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 18; Sector Ohio Valley, No. 21 is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass
through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain
of the Port or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C.
1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to
this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or Patrol Commander
determines that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: June 13, 2013.
L.W. Hewett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2013-16046 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


EPA took a machine reading approach to extract information from certification decision documents from seven certifying authorities (Arkansas, California Water Board of San Diego, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington). The attached files are original versions of the files, as downloaded from state websites. These files were converted to be searchable for the machine reading exercise, and the converted version are included in the "Certification Decisions PDFs" posted by state.


° The relaxation of permitting requirements may encourage more generators to apply for standardized storage permits. The Economic Analysis did not consider any increase in preparation of standardized permits and the impact this would have on costs.

Each of these points is evaluated in the following sections.

1. State Permit Fees Are Not Accounted For The Economics Background Document states that 76% of the savings will be realized by the state or Federal permitting authority. Yet there is no allowance or adjustment made for state permitting fees. Many states have permitting fees in place to help cover permitting costs. These fees often exceed the maximum reported savings of $ 5800 per permit action. Since most of the savings are associated with eliminating review and preparation of NODs by the state, and since state permit fees cover this cost already, then there really are no net savings. The impact of permit fees should be accounted for in the economic analysis.

Almost all of the states in which ETC members operate have permit fees, and most of the heavily industrialized states, where generators are located, have permit fees as well. If we assume that half the states have permit fees, then the economic benefit needs to be reduced by 35% ( one half of the 76% savings attributed to government administrative costs). This would make the total national savings closer to $ 235,600 to $ 328,600 per year.

2. No Savings Associated With Elimination of the Closure Plan at the Time of Permit Application The economic analysis should not consider savings related to elimination of a closure plan because preparation and submission of the plan would simply be postponed, not eliminated. At some point in the future, prior to closing, a closure plan will still be required. The permit authority will still need to invest the technical effort at a point in time when costs will be higher. Therefore, there really are no net savings. In fact, there are actually cost increases associated with the standardized permit approach because applicants still need to prepare some estimate of closure costs for their files. Then in addition, at the time of closure, the plan needs to be prepared, submitted, and reviewed. There may actually be more costs associated with trying to reconcile previous estimates 259 made at the time of permit application with the estimates needed at the time of closure, particularly if the permit application costs are based on Options 4 or 5 discussed in the proposed rule. Another key consideration is that the administrative costs to the government will be higher since it is easier to review a closure plan submitted simultaneously with the permit application, because all of the engineering detail is together. In contrast, a postponed closure plan submitted separately from the application will require more research, site visits and file review by the government.

For the purposes of this evaluation it is assumed that the closure cost savings should be ignored, even though a case can be made that they will be higher. Table 8 of the Economics Background Document indicates that the assumed hours saved related to closure plan postponement amount to 19 hours out of the total of 120 hours saved per permit action. This amounts to 16% of the cost savings. Eliminating another 16% of costs savings brings the total cost savings down another $ 60,800 to $ 84,800 for a total net range of $ 174,800 to $ 243,800 savings ( including adjustments from section 1 above).

3. Permit Renewal Applications Should Not Be Considered as Costly as New Permit Applications It is clear from Table 9 of the Economics Background Document at page 30 that EPA assumed that the hours of preparation and review of a renewal application are of equal magnitude to a new permit application. This is simply not true for a basic on site storage unit. A more realistic estimate would be to assume that permit renewals require about half of the hours that a new permit application requires. Based on this assumption, total permit hours saved would be reduced by 16%, using the data presented in Table 9. Adjusting the savings for this 16% reduced time required for renewal applications results in a reduction in the cost savings by another increment of $ 60,800 to $ 84,800. This makes the net adjusted cost savings of the standardized permit rule in the range of $ 114,000 to $ 159,000 per year ( including adjustments from Sections 1 and 2 above).

4. The Calculations in the Economics Background Documents are Based on 200 Permit Actions per Year Instead of the Actual Rate of 105 Actions Per Year Table 11 of the Economics Background Document at page 31 indicates that the cost savings are based on 200 Permit Actions per year. Yet the historical analysis presented in Table 5 of the same document indicates a recent permit action rate of 105 per year. Therefore, the savings should be reduced to correspond to this actual rate of 105 actions per year. Adjusting the savings in Section 3 above by a ratio of 105/ 200 results in a reduced savings of $ 59,850 to $ 83,475.

5. No Costs Assumed for A Rise in Permit Applications The Economics Background Document does not consider that the standardized permit rule will encourage more generators to apply for storage permits. If more permit actions result, this will actually increase costs, and further reduce the meager net savings estimated in Section 4 above. In fact, the standardized permit could encourage such a large number storage permits that there may 260 likely be a net increase in costs to government agencies, with a higher number of permit actions required. These costs are not evaluated or considered in EPA's analysis.

Overall Conclusions on Economics Based on the above critique of the Economics Background Document, the true nationwide savings of the Standardized Permit Rule is at most $ 83,475 per year. Such a meager savings does not justify the standardized permit process. These savings are simply not worth it since they essentially come from shortcutting two portions of the permit process: elimination of closure plans and the elimination of government review with written comments on the permit application and responses by the applicant. This shortcutting of the permitting process eliminates quality assurance of the application and the checks and balances built into the current permitting process, and also reduces public participation. All of these shortcuts are not justified to save nationwide costs of only $ 83,475, or just 22 hours per permit action. Considering further that most states are covering their costs with permit fees, there is no economic justification for this rule. Finally, the rule will more likely result in increased nationwide costs because the standardized permit will encourage more permit actions.

In view of this analysis, the ETC again urges the Agency to withdraw the proposed standardized permit rule and develop a broader proposal that would provide a more streamlined and efficient process, without sacrificing environmental protection or public participation, for all RCRA permits. ( David R. Case, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council, RCRA 2001 0029 0071)

Response:

1. EPA revised the burden reduction estimation methodology in the economic analysis by: ( a) applying a burden multiplier to increase the baseline burden associated with submitting/ reviewing the Part B application, to compensate for the fact that the burden estimates in the initial economic analysis ( which were based on " Supporting Statement" burden hour data for Information Collection Request ( ICR) Nr. 1573 and Nr. 1935.01), did not reflect multiple " back and forth" burden between submitter and agency reviewers, and ( b) implemented a second alternative burden reduction estimation methodology based on an alternative data source (" Method A"). Consequently, the burden hour reduction savings ( to facilities + authorities combined) in the final rule economic analysis is modified to $ 6,400 to $ 32,100 per permit action ( under the new " Method A"), and $ 100 to $ 20,800 under the modified initial method (" Method B"), which represents an overall paperwork burden savings range of $ 100 to $ 32,100 per permit action. The modified estimate of combined burden hour reduction is 2 to 480 hours per permit action, which represent reductions of 4% to 40% in traditional permit burden baseline. The modified estimate of national cost savings associated with annual burden reduction is $ 1.34 million to $ 2.72 million. These estimates represent substantive potential savings in paperwork burden on a per action and on an aggregate basis. Most of the burden reduction savings is from elimination of the " back and forth" submittal and review of the Part B application. Under the final rule, submittal of a closure plan is 261 required with the Notice of Intent to apply for a standardized permit. Furthermore, the rationale for limiting standardized permits to tanks, containers, and containment buildings is that ( a) these three types of waste management units are normally " off the shelf" standardized design and simpler to design, construct and manage, and ( b) only units that can be clean closed are eligible ( which obviates Part B permit post closure planning), both considerations diminish the rationale for review of detailed Part B technical information about such units.

2. State fees: This impact element is included in the final rule economic analysis, which estimates a $ 12.7 to $ 15.4 million/ year potential future reduction in payment of state hazardous waste management fees. This impact element is a " transfer payment" effect rather than a " real resource" economic effect. Closure plan: The final rule requires submittal of a closure plan with Notice of Intent to apply for a standardized permit. Renewals: The baseline burden and incremental change in burden associate with permit renewal actions is modified in the final rule economic analysis, according to the new data source applied as estimation " Method A" which provides a unique estimate for permit renewals, and according to a unique estimate for permit renewals derived from the ICR reference data, collected and applied as estimation " Method B". Actions/ year: The 3 year historical data trend of 105 permit determinations/ year does not include ( a) induced conversions of traditional permits to standardized permits, or ( b) renewals occurring after 10 year permit expiration; in comparison, the 10 year historical data show 125 average annual permit actions. The final rule economic analysis basically assumes 135 average annual permit actions ( for n= 866 eligible facility universe), escalated 10 years out into the future by renewal of the converted permits, resulting in 166 future average annual permit actions over the 30 year future period applied as a framework in the economic analysis. To reflect uncertainty, this assumption is subject to a sensitivity analysis of  2.9% to + 2.9% future annual changes in permit activities. Induced actions: The economic analysis applies a + 2.9% future annual increase in permit activities to reflect the possibility that the rule may induce additional new applications beyond the expected future trend relative to historical baseline. Although this represents a potential induced increase in annual permitting burden to authorities, the net national economic effect includes the potential positive impact of new entrants on: ( a) reducing the paperwork cost of future permit renewals/ modifications; ( b) improving market competition in the waste management industry thereby potentially lowering prices for services, ( c) expediting improvement in waste management equipment performance by induced replacements/ modifications to existing equipment, and ( d) decreasing overall waste transportation costs to waste management facilities by possible addition of more locations across the nation, thereby reducing waste transportation distances. The final rule economic analysis provides a brief qualitative discussion of this potential net economic effect as being positive on the national economy and US waste management industry.

3. The economic analysis attempts to provide an estimate of " real resource" impact on the economy, rather than " transfer payment" effects. Rather than 76%, the modifications to the burden hour estimation methodology resulted in estimates of 6% (" Method A") and of 65% 262 (" Method B") of paperwork burden cost reduction accruing to state permitting authorities. Furthermore, the final rule economic analysis provides an estimate of $ 12.7 million to $ 15.4 million/ year in potential impact on state fees paid ( collected) for hazardous waste permitting.

4. This cost savings element is dropped from the final rule economic analysis, because the final rule requires preparation and submittal of a closure plan with a Notice of Intent to apply for a standardized permit.

5. The baseline burden and incremental change in burden associate with permit renewal actions is modified in the final rule economic analysis, according to the new data source applied as estimation " Method A" which provides a unique estimate for permit renewals, and according to a unique estimate for permit renewals derived from the ICR reference data, collected and applied as estimation " Method B"

6. The 3 year historical data trend of 105 permit determinations/ year does not include ( a) induced conversions of traditional permits to standardized permits, or ( b) renewals occurring after 10 year permit expiration; in comparison, the 10 year historical data show 125 average annual permit actions. The final rule economic analysis basically assumes 135 average annual permit actions ( for n= 866 eligible facility universe), escalated 10 years out into the future by renewal of the converted permits, resulting in 166 future average annual permit actions over the 30 year future period applied as a framework in the economic analysis. To reflect uncertainty, this assumption is subject to a sensitivity analysis of  2.9% to + 2.9% future annual changes in permit activities.

7. The economic analysis applies a + 2.9% future annual increase in permit activities to reflect the possibility that the rule may induce additional new applications beyond the expected future trend relative to historical baseline. Although this represents a potential induced increase in annual permitting burden to authorities, the net national economic effect includes the potential positive impact of new entrants on: ( a) reducing the paperwork cost of future permit renewals/ modifications; ( b) improving market competition in the waste management industry thereby potentially lowering prices for services, ( c) expediting improvement in waste management equipment performance by induced replacements/ modifications to existing equipment, and ( d) decreasing overall waste transportation costs to waste management facilities by possible addition of more locations across the nation, thereby reducing waste transportation distances. The final rule economic analysis provides a brief qualitative discussion of this potential net economic effect as being positive on the national economy and US waste management industry.

8. The modified estimate of net national economic impact for all incremental features of the final rule is $ 2.8 million/ year ( i. e., burden reduction + changes to financial assurance requirements + added cost for site audit certification + improved financial return on waste management capital assets). Furthermore, the final rule is expected to decrease state permitting fee payments by $ 12.7 million to $ 15.4 million/ year associated with the reduction in paperwork burden to state authorities ( a " transfer payment" effect). These estimates represent substantive potential savings in 263 paperwork burden on a per action, as well as aggregate national economic effects. Most of the burden reduction savings is from elimination of the " back and forth" submittal and review of the Part B application. Under the final rule, submittal of a closure plan is required with the Notice of Intent to apply for a standardized permit.


[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3300-3302]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57132; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-125]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Continued Listing
Standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities

January 11, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On December 5, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange''), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a), which sets forth

the Exchange's continued listing criteria for Equity Index-Linked
Securities.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 12, 2007.\4\ The Commission received
no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) defines Equity Index-
Linked Securities as securities that provide for the payment at
maturity of a cash amount based on the performance of an underlying
index or indexes of equity securities, also referred to as the
``Equity Reference Asset.'' See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56918 (December 6,
2007), 72 FR 70635 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to remove from NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a) the continued listing requirement for Equity
Index-Linked Securities that prohibits the number of components
comprising the underlying index from increasing or decreasing by 33\1/
3\% from the original number of index components at the time of initial
listing of such securities (the ``33\1/3\% Requirement'').\5\ The
Exchange states that its listing standards for exchange-traded funds
under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) and those of other national
securities exchanges do not impose this same limitation regarding the
change in the number of components comprising the underlying index. The
Exchange believes that, in the case of Equity Index-Linked Securities,
investors purchase such securities because they believe that the
underlying index methodology is accurately described in the offering
documentation, and that the index sponsor will maintain the index
methodology appropriately, so that the index will continue to represent
the sector, geographic region, or other investment characteristics the
index is designed to track. As such, rather than buying Equity Index-
Linked Securities on the basis of the current contents of the index,
the Exchange states that investors rely on the index sponsor to define
and manage the index selection rules so that the index over time is
sustainable in response to changing market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because Equity Index-Linked Securities may have terms
that endure for as long as 30 years, the Exchange states it is likely
that the underlying index for such securities will ultimately change in
ways that will render them non-compliant with NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii), and as a result, the Exchange believes that
the 33\1/3\% Requirement penalizes Equity Index-Linked Securities with
such long-term maturities. Specifically, Equity Index-Linked Securities
based on total industry/country composite indexes are at risk of being
delisted prior to the stated maturity date. In addition, new issues of
Equity Index-Linked Securities may not be launched because of issuer
concerns regarding the negative impact of the possible delisting of
such securities due to index component changes that reflect expanding
or retracting industry sectors or changes in the geographical business
environment. The Exchange does not believe that it is protective of
investors to require the delisting of those Equity Index-Linked
Securities in such event.
    Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to maintain the 10-component
minimum requirement in NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(ii) as a continued listing standard by moving
reference to this requirement to Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a), which
would make reference to Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a), as proposed. NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a) requires that each underlying
index have at least 10 component securities of different issuers.

III. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Approval of the Proposed
Rule Change

    After careful review and based on the Exchange's representations,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\6\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(A)(b), certain issues of Equity Index-Linked Securities may
have terms that endure for as long as 30 years and, depending on the
degree of focus and investment objectives of the Equity Reference
Asset, the number of components comprising the underlying equity index
may change during this time period and could put an issue of Equity
Index-Linked Securities at risk of being non-compliant with the 33\1/
3\% Requirement. Therefore, Equity Index-Linked Securities could be
subject to delisting prior to their stated maturity date. The
Commission believes that eliminating the 33\1/3\% Requirement
reasonably balances the removal of impediments to a free and open
market with the protection of investors and the public interest, two
principles set forth in section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\8\ The Commission
notes that each issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities must continue
to maintain all of the initial listing standards for Equity Index-
Linked Securities, including the continued requirement that each
underlying index have a minimum of 10 component securities of different
issuers under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(1)(a), and
satisfy the continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a), including the enhanced minimum
concentration limits under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6)(B)(I)(2)(a)(i). Given the variety of certain equity indexes
that focus on specific industry sectors and geographic markets, for
example, and the extended duration of maturities for certain Equity
Index-Linked Securities, the Commission believes that the number of
components in an index may increase or decrease by more than 33\1/3\%
from the number of components in the index at the time of initial
listing without adversely impacting the interests of investors. At the
same time, the Commission believes that the proposal should benefit
investors by creating additional alternatives to investing in such
products and competition in the market for Equity Index-Linked
Securities, while maintaining transparency of the underlying components
comprising an index. As such, the Commission believes it is reasonable
and consistent with the Act for the Exchange to modify the listing
standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities in the manner described in
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-125), be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-707 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63571-63573]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31281; Amdt. No. 3878]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for

operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed
because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of
changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the
commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or
changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to
promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the
affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective November 18, 2019. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2019.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME

or TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State             City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Dec-19..............  ND           Tioga...............  Tioga Muni..........       9/7699      9/26/19  This NOTAM, published in Docket No. 31279,
                                                                                Amdt No. 3876, TL 19-25 (84 FR 59294;
                                                                                November 4, 2019), is hereby rescinded in
                                                                                its entirety.
5-Dec-19..............  CA           Palm Springs........  Palm Springs Intl...       9/1390     10/24/19  RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 31L, Amdt 1B.
5-Dec-19..............  CA           Palm Springs........  Palm Springs Intl...       9/1391     10/24/19  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13R, Amdt 1.
5-Dec-19..............  NC           Charlotte...........  Charlotte/Douglas          9/1741     10/24/19  ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, ILS RWY 18R (SA CAT I),
                                                            Intl.                                           ILS RWY 18R (CAT II), ILS RWY 18R (CAT III),
                                                                                Amdt 2.
5-Dec-19..............  VA           Franklin............  Franklin Rgnl.......       9/8979     10/24/19  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A.
5-Dec-19..............  CA           Fresno..............  Fresno Yosemite Intl       9/9029     10/24/19  LOC Y RWY 11L, Amdt 3.
5-Dec-19..............  OH           West Union..........  Alexander Salamon...       9/9048     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B.
5-Dec-19..............  OH           West Union..........  Alexander Salamon...       9/9052     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-B.
5-Dec-19..............  TX           Breckenridge........  Stephens County.....       9/9054     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1.
5-Dec-19..............  TX           Breckenridge........  Stephens County.....       9/9055     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1.
5-Dec-19..............  TX           Coleman.............  Coleman Muni........       9/9056     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1.
5-Dec-19..............  TX           Corsicana...........  C David Campbell           9/9073     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-C.
                                                            Field-Corsicana
                                                            Muni.
5-Dec-19..............  TX           Corsicana...........  C David Campbell           9/9074     10/23/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1.
                                                            Field-Corsicana
                                                            Muni.
5-Dec-19..............  VA           Franklin............  Franklin Rgnl.......       9/9256     10/24/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B.
5-Dec-19..............  VA           Franklin............  Franklin Rgnl.......       9/9258     10/24/19  RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-24453 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29762-29763]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2005-000]

Hickory Park Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Hickory Park Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 16, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11710 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 66348]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0620]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilot
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on May 10, 2022. The collection involves FAA review of
Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certification Training Program (CTP)
submittals to determine that the program complies with the applicable
requirements. It also involves FAA review of an institution of higher
education's application for the authority to certify its graduates meet
the minimum regulatory requirements.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0755.
    Title: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air
Carrier Operations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on May 10, 2022 (87 FR 28098). FAA aviation safety
inspectors review the Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) Certification
Training Program (CTP) submittals to determine that the program
complies with the applicable requirements of 14 CFR 61.156. The
programs that comply with the minimum requirements receive approval to
begin offering the course to applicants for an ATP certificate with a
multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate obtained concurrently
with an airplane type rating. FAA aviation inspectors also review an
institution of higher education's application for the authority to
certify its graduates meet the minimum requirements of 14 CFR 61.160.
The institutions of higher education that receive a letter of
authorization for their degree program(s) are authorized to place a
certifying statement on a graduates' transcript indicating he or she is
eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate.
    Respondents: Varies per requirement.
    Frequency: Varies per requirement.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies per requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,301 Hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2022.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-200.
[FR Doc. 2022-23907 Filed 11-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2187-2189]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00598]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34468; File No. 812-15235]

John Hancock Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, et al.

January 10, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under Section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.

Applicants: John Hancock Exchange-Traded Fund Trust (the ``Trust''),
John Hancock Investment Management LLC (``John Hancock'') and Foreside
Fund Services, LLC.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'') that
permits: (a) The Funds (defined below) to issue shares (``Shares'')
redeemable in large aggregations only (``creation units''); (b)
secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market
prices rather than at net asset value; (c) certain Funds to pay
redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days
after the tender of Shares for redemption; and (d) certain affiliated
persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities
from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of
creation units. The relief in the Order would incorporate by reference
terms and conditions of the same relief of a previous order granting
the same relief sought by applicants, as that order may be amended from
time to time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fidelity Beach Street Trust, et al., Investment Company Act
Rel. Nos. 33683 (Nov. 14, 2019) (notice) and 33712 (Dec. 10, 2019)
(order). Applicants are not seeking relief under Section 12(d)(1)(J)
of the Act for an exemption from Sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act (the ``Section 12(d)(1) Relief''), and relief
under Sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act relating to the Section
12(d)(1) Relief, except as necessary to allow a Fund's receipt of
Representative ETFs included in its Tracking Basket solely for
purposes of effecting transactions in Creation Units (as these terms
are defined in the Reference Order), notwithstanding the limits of
Rule 12d1-4(b)(3). Accordingly, to the extent the terms and
conditions of the Reference Order relate to such relief, they are
not incorporated by reference herein other than with respect to such
limited exception.

Filing Date: The application was filed on June 2, 2021 and amended on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 16, 2021 and December 20, 2021.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at [email protected] and serving applicants with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 4, 2022, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by emailing the Commission's Secretary at [email protected].

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
[email protected]. Applicants: Kinga Kapuscinski, Esq., John
Hancock Investment Management LLC, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keri E. Riemer, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-8695 or Marc Mehrespand, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants

    1. The Trust is a business trust organized under the laws of
Massachusetts and will consist of one or more series operating as a
Fund. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment
company under the Act. Applicants seek relief with respect to Funds (as
defined below), including the initial Fund (the ``Initial Fund''). The
Funds will offer exchange-traded shares utilizing active management
investment strategies as contemplated by the Reference Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To facilitate arbitrage, among other things, each day a Fund
will publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different
from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. John Hancock, a Delaware limited liability company, will be the
investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Subject to approval by the
Trust's board of trustees, John Hancock or any entity controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with John Hancock (any such
entity included in the term ``Adviser''), will serve as investment
adviser to each Fund. John Hancock is, and any other Adviser will be,
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). John Hancock may enter into sub-advisory
agreements with other investment advisers to act as sub-advisers with
respect to the Funds (each, a ``Sub-Adviser''). Any Sub-Adviser to a
Fund will be registered under the Advisers Act.
    3. Foreside Fund Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Exchange Act''), and will act as the
principal underwriter of shares of the Initial Fund. Applicants request
that the requested relief apply to any distributor of Shares, whether
affiliated or unaffiliated with the Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser
(included in the term ``Distributor''). Any Distributor will comply
with the terms and conditions of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the
Act and under Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from
Sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested Order
would permit applicants to offer Funds that operate as contemplated by
the Reference Order. Because the relief requested is the same as
certain of the relief granted by the Commission under the Reference
Order and because John Hancock or an affiliate has initially entered
into a licensing agreement with Fidelity Management & Research Company,
or an affiliate thereof, in order to offer Funds that operate as
contemplated by the Reference Order,\3\ the Order would incorporate by
reference the terms and conditions of the same relief of the Reference
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Certain aspects of how the Funds will operate (as described
in the Reference Order) are the intellectual property of Fidelity
Management & Research Company (or its affiliates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Fund and
to any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by John
Hancock or any Adviser; (b) offers exchange-traded shares utilizing
active management investment strategies as contemplated by the
Reference Order; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the
Order and the terms and conditions of the Reference Order that are
incorporated by reference into the Order (each such company or series
and the Initial Fund, a ``Fund'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and the terms and conditions of the Reference Order that are
incorporated by reference into the Order.

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

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent
with the policies of the registered investment company and the general
purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the
Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any
class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any
provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the
public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants submit that
for the reasons stated in the Reference Order the requested relief
meets the exemptive standards under sections 6(c), 17(b) and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12(d)(1)(J) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00598 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P