[Federal Register: June 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 110)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32652-32653]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0502; Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-15]

Revocation and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Nuiqsut, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes and establishes Class E airspace on the
north slope of Alaska near Nuiqsut, AK, to provide controlled airspace
to contain aircraft executing special Instrument Approach Procedures
(IAPs) at two heliport facitities, Pioneer Heliport (AA27), Nuiqsut,
AK, and Oooguruk Island Heliport (AK32), Nuiqsut, AK, both formerly
known as Oooguruk Drill Site and Oooguruk Tie-in Helipads,
respectively. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Pioneer
and Oooguruk Island Heliports, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 29, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Thursday September 3, 2009, the FAA amended Title 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71, to establish Class E airspace
upward from 700 ft. above the surface and from 1,200 ft. above the
surface at two privately owned heliport facilities at Oooguruk, AK (74
FR 45554). The two heliports were named ``Oooguruk Drill Site Helipad''
and ``Oooguruk Tie-in Helipad''. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
gained further knowledge that the two heliports are actually named
``Pioneer Heliport'' and ``Oooguruk Island Heliport'' and should be
associated with the town of Nuiqsut (the closest nearby). This
administrative action is being taken without public comment as it is a
simple administrative change only, and will not affect the defined
controlled airspace other than by name change and minor edit to
unnecessary exclusion wording. The airspace exclusion currently
associated with Restricted Area 2204 is unnecessary. Class E and
Restricted airspace are mutually exclusive, so the exclusion wording is
being removed. Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700
ft. and 1,200 ft. above the surface in the Pioneer and Oooguruk Island
Heliport areas are removed and established by this action.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace
extending 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface at Pioneer and Oooguruk
Island Heliports, AK.
    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. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the two heliports at Pioneer
Heliport, AK, and Oooguruk Island Heliport, AK, and represents the
FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use the navigable
airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71-- DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Oooguruk Drill Site Helipad, AK [Removed]

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Nuiqsut, Oooguruk Island Heliport, AK [New]

Oooguruk Island Heliport, AK
    (Lat. 70[deg]29'44'' N., long. 150[deg]15'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Oooguruk Island Heliport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
73-mile radius of the Oooguruk Island Heliport, AK.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Oooguruk Tie-in Helipad, AK [Removed]

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Nuiqsut, Pioneer Heliport, AK [New]

Pioneer Heliport, AK
    (Lat. 70[deg]24'51'' N., long. 150[deg]01'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Pioneer Heliport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
73-mile radius of the Pioneer Heliport, AK.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on May 26, 2010.
Michael A. Tarr,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-13545 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65377-65379]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26425]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0621; FRL-9746-5]

Access by EPA Contractors To Confidential Business Information
Related to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs plans to authorize the
contractors named in this notice to access information submitted to EPA
under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that may be designated or
claimed as confidential business information. Contractor access to this
information will begin no sooner than November 6, 2012.

DATES: EPA will accept comments on this Notice through November 5,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0621 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0621 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 2822T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0621,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0621. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 http://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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Comment Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    This notice is directed to the general public. However, this action
may be of particular interest to parties subject to the requirements of
40 CFR part 98. If you have further questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular party, please contact the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

1. Electronically
    EPA has included a public docket for this Federal Register notice
under Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0621.
    All documents in the docket are identified in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, such as confidential
business information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain materials, such as copyrighted material,
will only be available in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center.
2. EPA Docket Center
    Materials listed under Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0621 will be
available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and

the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

1. Submitting CBI in Response to This Notice
    Clearly mark the part or all of the comments that you claim to be
CBI submitted in response to this notice. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    Identify this Notice by docket number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
    Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
    Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
    Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
    Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified in the
preceding section titled DATES. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be
sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the
subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide
the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Description of Programs and Potential Disclosure of Information
Claimed as Confidential Business Information to Contractors

    EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP) has responsibility for
protecting public health and the environment by addressing climate
change, protecting the ozone layer, and improving regional air quality.
In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764;
Pub. L. 110-161), EPA created the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
(GHGRP), 40 CFR part 98 (Part 98), which requires reporting of
greenhouse gas (GHG) data and other relevant information from large
sources and suppliers in the United States. The purpose of Part 98 is
to collect accurate and timely GHG data to inform future policy
decisions. Some of the information submitted is designated or claimed
to be CBI. Such information is handled in accordance with EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B and in accordance with EPA
procedures that are consistent with those regulations.
    EPA has, at times, determined that it is necessary to disclose to
EPA contractors and subcontractors certain information that has been
designated or claimed as CBI. When this occurs, the corresponding
contract must address the appropriate use and handling of the
information by the contractor. In every instance, the contractor or
subcontractor must require its personnel who need access to information
designated or claimed as CBI to sign written agreements before they are
granted access to the data. These agreements must provide that the
contractor and its personnel ``shall refrain from disclosing the
information to anyone other than EPA without the prior written approval
of each affected business or of an EPA legal office.'' Before providing
CBI access to any contractor, EPA must also determine in writing that
CBI disclosure to the contractor or subcontractor is necessary to carry
out the work required by the contract or subcontract (40 CFR
2.301(h)(2)(i)).
    In addition to contractors' requirement to sign written agreements
prior to being granted access to CBI and EPA's requirement to determine
in writing that CBI disclosure to contractors is necessary, EPA is also
required to give notice in accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h)(2)(iii). EPA
has determined that the contractors, subcontractors, and grantees
(collectively referred to as ``contractors'') listed below may require
access to data submitted to EPA under the GHGRP that is designated or
claimed as CBI. EPA is providing notice and an opportunity to comment
and is issuing this Federal Register notice to inform all reporters of
information under Part 98 that EPA may grant access to material that
may be designated or claimed as CBI to the contractors identified
below, as needed. EPA may also grant access to materials that may be
designated or claimed as CBI to any of the listed subcontractors, as
needed, but does not necessarily anticipate granting access to all of
the listed subcontractors. EPA will only grant CBI access to any listed
contractors or subcontractors after fulfilling the requirements
described above.
    Under Contract Number EP-W-11-052, Task Order 0004, SAIC, 1710 SAIC
Drive, McLean, VA 22102, and its subcontractor, Environ, 773 San Marin
Drive, Suite 2115, Novato, CA 94998, provide technical support that
requires access to information designated or claimed as CBI related to
the GHGRP, including, but not limited to, 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR.
Access to data, including information designated or claimed as CBI,
will commence no sooner than November 6, 2012 and will continue until
the termination of this contract. If the contract is extended, this
access will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice.
    Under Contract Number EP-W-11-054, Task Order 0004, RTI
International, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194,
and its subcontractors, Advanced Resources International, Inc. 4501
Fairfax Drive, Suite 910, Arlington, Virginia 22203, provide technical
support that requires access to information designated or claimed as
CBI related to the GHGRP, including, but not limited to, 40 CFR part
98, subpart UU. Access to data, including information designated or
claimed as CBI, will commence no sooner than November 6, 2012 and will
continue until the termination of this contract. If the contract is
extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the contract
and any further extensions without further notice.
    Under Contract Number EP-BPA-12-H-0022, Task Order EP-B12H-00157,
ICF International, 1725 Eye Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington DC
20006, and its subcontractor, Steve Scalucci, 220 Sauk Drive, Batavia,
IL 60510, provide technical support that requires access to information
designated or claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, including, but not
limited to, 40 CFR part 98, subparts F, I, L, O, T, DD, OO, QQ, and SS.
Access to data, including information designated or claimed as CBI,
will commence no sooner than November 6, 2012 and will continue until
the termination of this contract. If the contract is extended, this
access will continue for the remainder of the contract and any further
extensions without further notice.
    Under Contract Number EP-BPA-12-H-0022, Task Order EP-B13H-00006,
ICF International, 1725 I Street, NW.,

Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006, and its subcontractors, J. Marks &
Associates, L.L.C., 312 NE. Brockton Drive, Lee Summit, MO 64064;
Transcarbon International, 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 6110, New York, NY
10119; Steve Scalucci, 220 Sauk Drive, Batavia, IL 60510; and Donald
Wuebbles, 105 S. Gregory Street, Urbana, IL 61801, provide technical
support that requires access to information designated or claimed as
CBI related to the GHGRP, including, but not limited to, 40 CFR part
98, subparts F, I, DD, OO, QQ, and SS. Access to data, including
information designated or claimed as CBI, will commence no sooner than
November 6, 2012 and will continue until the termination of this
contract. If the contract is extended, this access will continue for
the remainder of the contract and any further extensions without
further notice.
    Parties who wish further information about this Federal Register
notice or about OAP's disclosure of information designated or claimed
as CBI to contactors may contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 22, 2012.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-26425 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 38641-38643]
[DOCID:fr07jy06-70]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0312; FRL-8069-8]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment or
Amendment of Regulations for Residues of a Pesticide Chemical in or on
Various Commodities

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions

proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0312 and pesticide petition number PP
6E7030, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0312. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rebecca Edelstein, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated

the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner is available on EPA's
Electronic Docket at http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this

information on the home page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick
Search'' and type the OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located
the docket, clicking on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all
documents in the docket for the pesticide including the petition
summary.

New Exemption from Tolerance

     PP 6E7030. BioProdex, Inc., Gainesville Technology Enterprise
Center (GTEC), Box 5, Suite 205, 2153 SE Hawthorne Road, Gainesville,
FL 32641, proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, Tobacco mild green
mosaic tobamovirus (TMGMV), in or on all food commodities. Because this
petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without numerical limitations, no analytical method is
required.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 22, 2006.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-10570 Filed 7-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69688-69691]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68229; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Change the Monthly Fees for the Use of Ports

November 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 1, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The 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 Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to change the monthly
fees for the use of ports. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to change the monthly
fees for the use of ports that provide connectivity to the Exchange's
trading systems (i.e., ports for entry of orders and/or quotes
(``order/quote entry ports'')) and to implement a fee for ports that
allow for the receipt of ``drop copies'' of order or transaction
information (``drop copy ports'' and, together with order/quote entry
ports, ``ports'').\3\ The Exchange proposes to implement the fee
changes on November 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Firms receive confirmations of their orders and receive
execution reports via the order/quote entry port that is used to
enter the order or quote. A ``drop copy'' contains redundant
information that a firm chooses to have ``dropped'' to another
destination (e.g., to allow the firm's back office and/or compliance
department, or another firm--typically the firm's clearing broker--
to have immediate access to the information). Such drop copies can
only be sent via a drop copy port. Drop copy ports cannot be used to
enter orders and/or quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order/Quote Entry Ports
    The Exchange currently makes order/quote entry ports available for
connectivity to its trading systems and charges $300 per port pair per
month for up to five pairs of ports, then $1,500 per month for each
additional five pairs of ports.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63057 (October 6,
2010), 75 FR 63232 (October 14, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-70) (the port
fee ``Adopting Release''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 66107 (January 5, 2012), 77 FR 1759 (January 11, 2012) (SR-NYSE-
2011-72) (the port fee ``Amending Release''). For example, the
current fee for six pairs of ports would be $3,000 total per month
(i.e., $1,500 total for the first five pairs and $1,500 for the
sixth pair). The fee would remain $3,000 for pairs seven through 10.
The fee would increase by $1,500, to $4,500 total, for pairs 11
through 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to change the current methodology for order/
quote entry port billing, such that order/quote entry ports would be
charged on a per port basis, without billing in groups of five and
without requiring that ports be in pairs.\5\ More specifically, the
Exchange proposes to charge $200 per port per month for order/quote
entry ports, which are currently charged $300 per pair per month for
activity on

NYSE; \6\ provided, however, that (i) users of the Exchange's Risk
Management Gateway service (``RMG'') would not be charged for order/
quote entry ports if such ports are designated as being used for RMG
purposes, and (ii) Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'') would not be
charged for order/quote entry ports that connect to the Exchange via
the DMM Gateway.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange stated in the Adopting Release that the port
fee is charged per participant. The Exchange later clarified that
``per participant'' means per member organization for purposes of
the port fees. See Amending Release, at 1760. The proposed fee
change would change the current methodology such that ports would
not be charged on a per member organization basis. Accordingly,
reference to per member organization would be removed from the Price
List related to port fees.
    \6\ The Exchange has a Common Customer Gateway (``CCG'') that
accesses the equity trading systems that it shares with its
affiliates, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca''), and all ports connect to the CCG. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64542 (May 25, 2011), 76 FR 31659 (June 1,
2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-13). All NYSE member organizations are also NYSE
MKT member organizations and, accordingly, a member organization
utilizes its ports for activity on both NYSE and/or NYSE MKT and is
charged port fees based on the total number of ports connected to
the CCG, whether the ports are used to quote and trade on NYSE, NYSE
MKT, and/or both, because those trading systems are integrated. The
NYSE Arca trading platform is not integrated in the same manner.
Therefore, it does not share its ports with NYSE or NYSE MKT.
    \7\ Since the Adopting Release, the Exchange has not charged
DMMs for order/quote entry ports that have connected to the Exchange
via the DMM Gateway. Since 2011, when DMMs first became able to
enter orders through CCG, DMM order/quote entry ports connected to
the Exchange via the CCG have been, and currently are, charged port
fees in accordance with the Price List. DMMs can elect to use the
DMM Gateway, the CCG, or both for their connectivity to the
Exchange. However, the DMM Gateway must be used for certain DMM-
specific functions that relate to the DMM's role on the Exchange and
the obligations attendant therewith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two methods are available to DMMs to connect to the Exchange: DMM
Gateway and CCG. The two methods are quite distinct, however. Only DMMs
may utilize the DMM Gateway, and they may only use DMM Gateway when
acting in their capacity as a DMM. DMMs are required to use the DMM
Gateway for certain DMM-specific functions that relate to the DMM's
role on the Exchange and the obligations attendant therewith, which are
not applicable to other market participants on the Exchange. By
contrast, non-DMMs as well as DMMs may use the CCG, use of the CCG by a
DMM is optional, and a DMM that connects to the Exchange via CCG can
use the relevant order/quote entry port for orders and quotes both in
its capacity as a DMM and for orders and quotes in other securities.
Accordingly, because DMMs are required to utilize DMM Gateway, but not
CCG, to be able to fulfill their functions as DMMs, the Exchange
proposes that DMMs not be charged for order/quote entry ports that
connect to the Exchange via the DMM Gateway, but that DMMs, like other
market participants, be charged for order/entry ports that connect to
the Exchange via the CCG.
    The Exchange proposes that users of RMG would not be charged for
order/quote entry ports if such ports are designated as being used for
RMG purposes. RMG enables Sponsoring member organizations to verify
whether a Sponsored Participant's orders comply with order criteria
established by the Sponsoring member organization for the Sponsored
Participant, including, among other things, criteria related to order
size (per order or daily quantity limits), credit limits (per order or
daily value), specific symbols or end users.\8\ Currently, users of RMG
are required to pay the existing order/quote entry port fees for
connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems, in addition to the RMG
connection fees related to such ports.\9\ The Exchange proposes that
users of RMG would no longer be required to pay port fees for order/
quote entry ports designated as being used for RMG because, in the
Exchange's opinion, order/quote entry ports are an integral part of RMG
and such users are already charged a fee for RMG, including additional
connections related thereto, which the Exchange believes is sufficient
to cover its costs related to making the order/quote entry ports
available for RMG purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
specify that port fees are not applicable to order/quote entry ports
designated as being used for RMG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59354 (February 3,
2009), 74 FR 6683 (February 10, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-101) (order
approving RMG). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59430
(February 20, 2009), 74 FR 9014 (February 27, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-
15) (establishing RMG fees).
    \9\ Currently, a $3,000 charge per month applies for an initial
RMG connection and a $1,000 charge for every additional connection
thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drop Copy Ports
    The Exchange proposes to implement a fee for drop copy ports,\10\
for which the Exchange does not currently charge a fee, provided,
however, that DMMs would not be charged for drop copy ports that
utilize the DMM Gateway and users of RMG would not be charged for drop
copy ports if such ports are designated as being used for RMG purposes.
The Exchange proposes to charge $500 per port per month for drop copy
ports.\11\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify that only one
fee per drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop
copies from multiple order/quote entry ports and/or drop copies for
activity on both NYSE and NYSE MKT.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 3.
    \11\ The Exchange proposes to add language to the Price List to
differentiate between drop copy ports and order/quote entry ports.
    \12\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DMMs that connect to the Exchange using the DMM Gateway are
required to use drop copy ports that utilize the DMM Gateway for their
drop copies. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that DMMs not be
charged for drop copy ports that utilize the DMM Gateway, but that
DMMs, like other market participants, be charged for drop copy ports
that connect to the Exchange via the CCG, as DMMs are not required to
use CCG.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes that users of RMG would not be
charged for drop copy ports if such ports are designated as being used
for RMG purposes. The Exchange proposes that users of RMG not be
required to pay port fees for drop copy ports designated as being used
for RMG because, in the Exchange's opinion, ports are an integral part
of RMG and such users are already charged a fee for RMG, including
additional connections related thereto, which the Exchange believes is
sufficient to cover its costs related to making the ports available for
RMG purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to specify that port
fees are not applicable to drop copy ports designated as being used for
RMG.
    Overall, the Exchange believes that the changes proposed herein
will result in the method of billing for ports more closely aligning
with the needs of firms with ports. The proposed changes will also
permit the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges with
respect to fees charged for ports.\13\ The Exchange notes that the
proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues
surrounding ports or port fees and that the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that port users would have in complying with the proposed
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, the charge for connectivity to the NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') NY-Metro and Mid-Atlantic Datacenters
is $500 and a separate charge for Pre-Trade Risk Management ports is
applicable, which ranges from $400 to $600 and is capped at $25,000
per firm per month. Also, the BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') charges
$400 per month per pair (primary and secondary data center) for
logical ports. Additionally, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'') and EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') each charge $500 per port. EDGA and EDGX
also provide the first five ports for free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement these changes on November 1,
2012. In this regard, the Exchange notes that billing for ports would
be based, as is currently on the case, on the number of ports on the
third business day prior to the end of the month. In addition, the
level of activity with respect to a particular port would still not
affect the assessment of monthly fees, such that, except for ports that
are not charged,

even if a particular port is not used, a port fee would still apply.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes, including
the rates proposed, are reasonable because the fees charged for order/
quote entry ports and drop copy ports are expected to permit the
exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with
making such ports available, including costs based on gateway software
and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway
development, quality assurance, and support. In this regard, the
Exchange believes that its fees are competitive with those charged by
other venues, and that in some cases its port fees are less expensive
than many of its primary competitors.\16\ The Exchange believes that
the changes proposed herein will result in the method of billing for
ports more closely aligning with the needs of firms with ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the methodology
for billing for order/quote entry ports is reasonable because it will
simplify the fees for ports by eliminating the pair requirement and
allowing a firm that requires more than five pairs of ports to request,
and pay for, the specific number of ports that it requires, rather than
requesting ports in pairs and in groups of five. This aspect of the
proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will result in charges for order/entry ports being based on
the number of ports utilized. This aspect of the proposed change is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply on
an equal basis for all ports on the Exchange, except for order/quote
entry ports related to RMG and ports utilized by DMMs to connect to the
Exchange via the DMM Gateway.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange describes below how the proposed changes
regarding RMG and DMMs are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge $200 per port
per month for order/quote entry ports because, when combined with the
change to the methodology for billing for ports, it could result in a
decrease in the overall cost to users of ports. The proposed rate is
also reasonable because it is comparable to the rates of other
exchanges.\18\ The Exchange also believes that these changes to the
fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would
apply to all users of order/quote entry ports on the Exchange, subject
to the exceptions noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to not charge DMMs for order/quote entry ports that
connect to the Exchange via the DMM Gateway but to charge DMMs for
order/quote entry ports that connect to the Exchange via CCG, because
DMMs are required to use the DMM Gateway for certain DMM-specific
functions that relate to the DMM's role on the Exchange and the
obligations attendant therewith, which are not applicable to other
market participants on the Exchange. By contrast, non-DMMs as well as
DMMs may use the CCG, use of the CCG by a DMM is optional, and a DMM
that connects to the Exchange via CCG can use the relevant order/quote
entry port for orders and quotes both in its capacity as a DMM and for
orders and quotes in other securities. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge
DMMs for order/quote entry ports that connect to the Exchange via CCG,
as use of the CCG is not necessary for DMMs to fulfill their role as
DMMs. In addition, a single order/quote entry port that connects to the
Exchange via CCG could be used by a DMM both in its capacity as a DMM
and for other securities, for which other market participants would be
charged port fees. Consequently, the Exchange believes that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory that a DMM that connects to
the Exchange via CCG would continue to be charged applicable port fees,
as is currently the case.
    In addition, the Exchange notes that DMM Gateway, unlike CCG, was
designed with functionality to help DMMs fulfill their obligations as
DMMs efficiently, and so the Exchange believes that to the extent that
exempting DMM Gateway from port fees for order/quote entry ports
encourages DMMs to use the DMM Gateway to fulfill their obligations
helps ensure that that they are in the best position to operate
efficiently.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee for drop copy ports
is reasonable because it will result in a fee being charged for the use
of technology and infrastructure provided by the Exchange. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that the rate is reasonable because it is
comparable to the rate charged by other exchanges for drop copy
ports.\19\ Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rate
for a drop copy port is reasonable because, when compared to the
proposed rate for order/quote entry ports, it reflects the level of
resources required of the Exchange to establish and maintain the port,
including the various sources from which data comes (i.e., establishing
connections to order/quote entry ports as well as, in certain
circumstances, to order/quote entry ports on both NYSE and NYSE MKT).
The proposed rate is also reasonable in light of the functional/
operational differences between a drop copy port and an order/quote
entry port (e.g., that configuration and monitoring of the drop copy
port is more substantial and because drop copy ports capture cumulative
activity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable that only one fee
per drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop copies
from multiple order/quote entry ports and/or from both NYSE and NYSE
MKT, because the purpose of drop copies is such that a trading unit's
or a firm's entire order and execution activity is captured. This is
also reflected in the rate of $500 that is proposed for drop copy
ports, which is higher than the rate proposed for order/quote entry
ports. The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee for drop copy
ports is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply on an equal basis to all users of drop copy ports and to all drop
copy ports on the Exchange, except for those order/entry ports related
to RMG and ports utilized by DMMs to connect to the Exchange via the
DMM Gateway.\20\ In this regard, all firms are able to request drop
copy ports, as is the case with order/quote entry ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to not charge DMMs for drop copy ports that connect to
the Exchange via the DMM Gateway for the reasons above regarding order/
quote entry ports.
    The Exchange believes that not charging for ports that are
designated to

be used for RMG is reasonable because ports are an integral part of RMG
and such users are already charged a fee for RMG, including additional
connections related thereto, which the Exchange believes is sufficient
to cover its costs related to making the ports available for RMG
purposes.\21\ In this regard, ports not designated as being used for
RMG purposes would remain subject to port fees. The Exchange also
believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it would apply equally to all member organizations that utilize RMG,
which is fully-voluntary and is available to any member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-60 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-60. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-60 and should be
submitted on or before December 11, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28136 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73497-73498]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010]

Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee management; notice of open federal advisory committee
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board)
will meet virtually on Thursday, December 3, 2020. The meeting will be
open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Thursday, December 3, 2020, 1
p.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Time (ET). Please note that the meeting may
close early if the Board has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public who wish to participate in the virtual
meeting should contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption by 5 p.m. ET November 27, 2020, to
obtain the call-in number and access code for the December 3, 2020,
virtual meeting.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION caption. Participants seeking to have their
comments considered during the meeting should submit them in advance or
during the public comment segment. Comments submitted up to 30 days
after the meeting will be included in the public record and may be
considered at the next meeting. Comments submitted in advance must be
identified by Docket ID FEMA-2008-0010 and may be submitted by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Deborah Gartrell-Kemp, 16825 South
Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, post-marked no later than
November 20, 2020, for consideration at the December 3, 2020, meeting.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the Docket ID for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may wish to read the ``Privacy & Security Notice'' found via a link on
the homepage of www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, click on ``Advanced Search,'' then enter
``FEMA-2008-0010'' in the ``By Docket ID'' box, then select ``FEMA''
under ``By Agency,'' and then click ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Alternate Designated Federal Officer: Stephen Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Logistical Information: Deborah Gartrell-Kemp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Reasonable accommodations are available for people with
disabilities. To request a reasonable accommodation, contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption as soon as
possible. Last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible
to fulfill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board will meet virtually on Thursday,
December 3, 2020. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of
this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. Appendix.

Purpose of the Board

    The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the
National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States
Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any
improvements therein that the Board deems appropriate. In carrying out
its responsibilities, the Board examines Academy programs to determine
whether these programs further the basic missions that are approved by
the Administrator of FEMA, examines the physical plant of the Academy
to determine the adequacy of the Academy's facilities, and examines the
funding levels for Academy programs. The Board submits a written annual
report through the United States Fire Administrator to the
Administrator of FEMA. The report provides detailed comments and
recommendations regarding the operation of the Academy.

Agenda

    On Thursday, December 3, 2020, there will be four sessions, with
deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary:
    1. The Board will discuss USFA Data, Research, Prevention, and
Response.
    2. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital
improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and
Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request/Budget Planning.
    3. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy
program activities to include developments, deliveries, staffing, and
admissions.
    4. There will also be an update on the Board of Visitors
Subcommittee Groups for the Professional Development Initiative Update
and the National Fire Incident Report System.
    There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and
each speaker will be given no more than two minutes to speak. Please
note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated
following the last call for comments. Contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp to
register as a speaker. Meeting materials will be posted at https://

www.usfa.fema.gov/training/nfa/about/bov.html by November 20, 2020.

Tonya L. Hoover,
Deputy Fire Administrator, National Fire Academy, United States Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-25463 Filed 11-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-74-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14329-14331]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0443]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The
regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code
of Federal Regulations as the ``Instructions for Performing and
Recording Physical Examinations'' have resulted in numerous drivers
being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on
the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their
circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for 2
years in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2013-0443 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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 the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316; January 17, 2008).
This information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Papp, Chief, Medical Programs
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
letter FMCSA, Room W64-113, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), 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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 13
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to
drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate
commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any
other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.
    FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical
examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden
episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown
cause which did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision
whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an
individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the
treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested
that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode.
Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have
a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination
are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the
driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/
seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years,
may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate
drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified
to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-
seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To
submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2013-0443'' and click the
search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment
Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page,
enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may
issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2013-0443'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

Summary of Applications

Thomas Bynum

    Mr. Bynum is a 61 year-old class A CDL holder in North Carolina. He
does not have a history of seizure. He takes anti-seizure medication
since his surgery 35 years ago with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he

would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive
of Mr. Bynum receiving an exemption.

Brian Conaway

    Mr. Conaway is a 42 year-old class B CDL holder in Ohio. He has a
history of seizures and has remained seizure free and off anti-seizure
medication since his surgery 1999. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Conaway receiving an exemption.

Joan Diaz

    Ms. Diaz is a 49 year-old class B CDL holder in Maryland. She has a
history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 32 years.
She takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same for over 3 years. If granted the exemption, she
would like to drive a school bus. Her physician states that he is
supportive of Ms. Diaz receiving an exemption.

Christopher Fitch

    Mr. Fitch is a 51 year-old class B CDL holder in New York. He has a
history of seizures and his last seizure was one year ago while in the
hospital. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same for over 2 years. If granted the
exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Fitch receiving an exemption.

Ronald Hartl

    Mr. Hartl is a 55 year old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of
epilepsy and has remained seizure free for 35 years. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for
over 10 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV.
His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hartl receiving an
exemption.

Donald Hernandez

    Mr. Hernandez is a 40 year-old driver in California. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 14 years.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Hernandez receiving an exemption.

Craig Hoisington

    Mr. Hoisington is a 41 year-old driver in New Hampshire. He has a
history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free for 10 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Hoisington receiving an exemption.

Earnest Lansberry

    Mr. Lansberry is a 62 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 7 years.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would
like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Lansberry receiving an exemption.

Michael Miller

    Mr. Miller is a 56 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history
of epilepsy and has remained seizure free seizure for 11 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Miller
receiving an exemption.

Scott Smith

    Mr. Smith is a 39 year-old driver in California. He has a history
of seizure and has remained seizure free for 12 years. He discontinued
his anti-seizure medication 18 months ago. If granted the exemption, he
would like to drive a CMV. His physician is supportive of Mr. Smith
receiving an exemption.

Peter Thompson

    Mr. Thompson is a 21 year-old driver in Florida. He has a history
of seizures and has remained seizure free for over 10 years. He
discontinued his anti-seizure medication 8 years ago. If granted the
exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Thompson receiving an exemption.

Nathaniel Ware

    Mr. Ware is a 33 year-old driver in Alabama. He has a history of
seizures and has remained seizure free for 4 years. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for
2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Ware receiving an
exemption.

Jason Yowell

    Mr. Yowell is a 42 year-old driver in Virginia. He has a history of
seizures and has remained seizure free for 4 years. He discontinued his
anti-seizure medication 10 months ago. If granted the exemption, he
would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive
of Mr. Yowell receiving an exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption
applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
earlier in the notice.

    Issued on: February 26, 2014.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-05501 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 13330]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04721]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4451-019]

Somersworth Hydro Company, Inc.; City of Somersworth, NH; Notice
of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application
Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 4451-019.
    c. Date Filed: December 19, 2016.
    d. Submitted By: Somersworth Hydro Company, Inc. (a subsidiary of
Enel Green Power North America, Inc.) and City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire.
    e. Name of Project: Lower Great Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Salmon Falls River, in Strafford County, New
Hampshire and York County, Maine. No federal lands are occupied by the
project works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Kevin Webb, Enel Green Power North
America, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA 01810; (978) 935-
6039<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Ramer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Somersworth Hydro Company, Inc. and the City of Somersworth, NH
jointly filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on
December 19, 2016, and provided public notice of the request on
December 22, 2016. In a letter dated March 3, 2017, the Director of the
Division of Hydropower Licensing approved the request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the (New Hampshire and Maine) State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Somersworth Hydro Company,
Inc, and the City of Somersworth, NH, as the Commission's non-federal
representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Somersworth Hydro Company, Inc, and the City of Somersworth, NH,
filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process
plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 4451-019. Pursuant to 18
CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30,
2020.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: March 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04721 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6949]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0007]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on
January 8, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue
or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2021-0007.

Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Tommy A. Phillips, Senior
Director--C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309

    Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue an automatic
block signal (ABS) system on the W line, milepost (MP) W54.8, Inman, to
MP W65.6, Spartanburg, on the Coastal Division. This includes 5
automatic signals. The main track between MP W54.8 and MP W65.6 will be
converted to NS Rule 171 operation.
    NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that
operations no longer require ABS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-01422 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


From: Ram Singhal<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:42 AM
To: Spence, Kelley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Kelley's Note to Wade Re Cost of Catalyst testing
Importance: High
Attachment: Catalyst Invoice PPK 2018.pdf

Good morning Kelley,

In answer to your inquiry, one of our members sent the attached invoice for testing one catalyst bed in the oxidizer. It is $900. Note that there are three beds in an oxidizer and therefore total testing cost could be as high as $2700 per oxidizer.

Thanks.
Ram

Ram K. Singhal
Vice President
Technology & Environmental Strategy
Flexible Packaging Association
185 Admiral Cochrane Drive., Suite 105
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 694-0823 [Direct]
(410) 694-0800 [Office]
mailto<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

View the Sustainability Advantages of Flexible Packaging


US takings SUMMARIES OF SIGNIFICANT UNITED STATES CASES:

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309; 512 U. S. 374 ( 1994). In order to proceed with a remodelling, property owner was required to dedicate to the city a portion of her property which fell within a 100 year flood plain as well as the adjoining 15 feet for a bike path. The Court struck down the requirements, stating that the same result in terms of flood control could have been achieved with a lesser burden on the landowner by merely barring development on the flood plain. The bike path requirement, according to the Court, failed to establish a reasonable relationship between the burden of the proposed development ( increased traffic) and the required exaction. There was no quantified proof that traffic to a hardware store created a need for a bike path. The municipality has the burden of proof to establish that the benefit to the public of the required public facilities has a " rough proportionality" to the burden created by the proposed private development.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886; 505 U. S. 1003 ( 1992). Under state statute, a recreation lot owner was forbidden to build houses on the beach. A lower court finding had established that he had been " deprived of any reasonable economic use of the lots" and that they were " valueless". No further enquiry is necessary if property is physically invaded or if all economically viable use of the property is denied. The Court acknowledged that all property is held under an " implied limitation" that newly enacted laws and regulations may restrict its use, but also held that government could not " subsequently eliminate all economically valuable use" of property without compensating the owner. To avoid a taking, a state would have had to identify background principles of nuisance and property law which would prohibit the owner from developing the property.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48-49]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2014-0996; OMB Control Number 1625-0037]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension of a currently approved collection: 1625-0037, Certificates
of Compliance, Boiler/Pressure Vessel Repairs, Cargo Gear Records and
Shipping Papers. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0996] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE. SE., STOP
7710, WASHINGTON DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA
seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection
of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing
the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the
affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and
other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR
for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the

Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to
seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0996], and
must be received by March 3, 2015. We will post all comments received,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2014-0996], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2014-0996'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2014-0996'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Certificates of Compliance, Boiler/Pressure Vessel
Repairs, Cargo Gear Records and Shipping Papers.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0037.
    Summary: This information collection is needed to enable the Coast
Guard to fulfill its responsibilities for maritime safety under title
46, U.S. Code.
    Need: Title 46 U.S. Code 3301, 3305, 3306, 3702, 3703, 3711, and
3714 authorizes the Coast Guard to establish marine safety regulations
to protect life, property, and the environment. These regulations are
prescribed in title 46 Code of Federal Regulations.
    Forms: CG-3585, CG-5437A and CG-5437B.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains at 14,725 hours a
year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 35,
as amended.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Thomas P. Michelli,
 Acting Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-30772 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P