[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29759-29760]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12020]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9015-1]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 05/12/2014 Through 05/16/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140150, Final EIS, NMFS, AK, Steller Sea Lion Protection
Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area, Review Period Ends: 06/23/2014, Contact:
Gretchen Harrington,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140151, Draft EIS, USFWS, VA, Chincoteague and Wallops Island
National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan,
Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2014, Contact: Thomas Bonetti<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140152, Final EIS, FERC, ME, Downeast Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Project, Review Period Ends: 06/23/2014, Contact: Shannon Crosley
202-502-8853.
EIS No. 20140153, Draft EIS, NPS, NC, Cape Lookout National Seashore
Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 07/21/2014,
Contact: Michael B. Edwards<PHONE_NUMBER>.
AMENDED NOTICES
EIS No. 20140147, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Rim Fire Recovery, Comment
Period Ends: 06/16/2014, Contact: Maria Benech<PHONE_NUMBER>, Revision
to FR Notice Published 05/16/2014; Correction to reduce comment period
from 06/30/2014 to 06/16/2014 reflecting the President's Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) alternative arrangement granted in
accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11 on December 9, 2013. Among these
alternative arrangements, CEQ specifically approved shortening the
public comment for this DEIS from 45 to 30 days.

    Dated: May 20, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-12020 Filed 5-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71491-71492]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0681; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-13-AD;
Amendment 39-17268; AD 2012-23-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E2, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That
AD currently requires a one-time inspection and torque check of the 3-
way union plug installed on all fuel control units (FCUs). This new AD
requires the same actions. This AD also requires reduction of the
applicability to certain FCUs and references an updated service
bulletin containing additional detailed information to identify the
non-compliant ``red disk.'' This AD also requires replacement of the
plug before further flight if it is found to be non-compliant, and
prohibits installation of FCUs that have not passed the 3-way union
plug inspection and torque check. This AD was prompted by Turbomeca
S.A. informing us that FCUs manufactured, repaired, or overhauled after
March 31, 2008, do not require inspection. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fuel leaks, which could result in a fire and damage to the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective January 7, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 7,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00;
telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

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

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2009-03-04, Amendment 39-15805 (74 FR 7796,
February 20, 2009). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43552). That
NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection and torque check of the
3-way union plug, replacement of the plug before further flight if it
is found to be non-compliant, and would prohibit installation of FCUs
that have not passed the 3-way union plug inspection and torque check.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the updated service information, we estimate that this AD
will affect about 179 engines installed on helicopters of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.5 hour per product
to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
Required parts will cost about $14 per product. Based on these figures,
we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $10,114. Our
cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2009-03-04, Amendment 39-15805 (74 FR 7796, February 20, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

2012-23-12 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-17268; Docket No. FAA-2008-
0681; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-13-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 7, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2009-03-04, Amendment 39-15805 (74 FR
7796, February 20, 2009.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. models Arriel 1E2, 1S, and 1S1
turboshaft engines with FCUs manufactured, repaired, or overhauled
on or before March 31, 2008.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    Turbomeca S.A. informed the European Aviation Safety Agency of a
case of a ``red disk'' plug, adapted for bench testing, which was
installed on the FCU on an engine and released for service
operation. An engine experienced an in-service high pressure leak
event (at the fuel pump outlet) due to cracking of this ``red disk''
plug. This leak could lead to in-flight flame-out and/or possibly a
fire. This AD was prompted by Turbomeca S.A. informing us that FCUs
manufactured, repaired, or overhauled after March 31, 2008, do not
require inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks,
which could result in a fire and damage to the helicopter.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. Within 100 operating hours from the effective
date of this AD, perform a one-time inspection of the plug installed
in the FCU 3-way union, part number 9 932 30 706 0.
    (1) If the FCU 3-way union plug is unpainted, verify the plug is
torqued to between 1.3 and 1.5 daN.m, in accordance with Turbomeca
S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 0817, Version D,
dated February 29, 2012, before further flight.
    (2) If the FCU 3-way union plug has any red paint on it, replace
it with a serviceable plug and torque the plug to between 1.3 and
1.5 daN.m, in accordance with Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 73 0817,
Version D, dated February 29, 2012, before further flight.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any FCU
manufactured, repaired, or overhauled on or before March 31, 2008,
onto any Turbomeca S.A. model Arriel 1E2, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft
engine, unless the FCU 3-way union plug has passed the one-time
inspection and torque check required by this AD.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    If you performed the inspections and corrective actions required
by this AD using the original issue or any version up to and
including Version D of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 73 0817 before the
effective date of this AD, you have met the requirements of this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0063, dated April 17, 2012, for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 0817,
Version D, dated February 29, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00;
telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 14, 2012.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-28637 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 187 (Friday, September 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60355-60356]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21100]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 187 / Friday, September 25, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 44

[Docket No. OCC-2020-0002]
RIN 1557-AE67

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 248

[Docket No. R-1694]
RIN 7100-AF70

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 351

RIN 3064-AF17

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 75

RIN 3038-AE93

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 255

[Release no. BHCA-9A; File no. S7-02-20]
RIN 3235-AM70

Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain
Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity
Funds; Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC);
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC); and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

ACTION: Notification of correction.

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

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC (together, the agencies)
are issuing this correction to make technical corrections to the
Federal Register rule adopting amendments to the regulations
implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act published on
July 31, 2020.

DATES: Effective October 1, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    OCC: Tabitha Edgens, Counsel; Mark O'Horo, Senior Attorney, Chief
Counsel's Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>; for persons who are deaf or hearing
impaired, TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
    Board: Sarah Podrygula, Attorney,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Kirin Walsh,
Attorney,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.
For users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), (202) 263-
4869.
    FDIC: Michael B. Phillips, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Annmarie H.
Boyd, Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Legal Division, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
    CFTC: Cantrell Dumas, Special Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight;
Mark Fajfar, Assistant General Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of the General Counsel; Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,
Washington, DC 20581.
    SEC: William Miller, Senior Counsel, or Jennifer Songer, Branch
Chief at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Investment Adviser
Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
    You may also contact any of the individuals for these agencies
named in the final rule published on July 31, 2020, at 85 FR 46422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agencies are issuing this correction to
make technical corrections to the final rule adopting amendments to the
regulations implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act
published on July 31, 2020 (the 2020 amendments).\1\ Two of the
amendatory instructions of the 2020 amendments did not accurately
reflect changes to the agencies' rules as described in the
Supplementary Information section of the 2020 amendments. This
correction corrects the agencies' Federal Register notice consistent
with the Supplementary Information section of the 2020 amendments.
Specifically, this correction corrects an instruction stating that the
agencies were revising paragraph (d)(1) of section __.20 of the 2020
amendments when the agencies intended to revise the introductory text
to paragraph (d)(1). This correction also corrects instructions
concerning 17 CFR 255.10(c)(11) and 75.10(c)(11) to retain the
introductory text for those paragraphs. The agencies note that the
effective date for the 2020 amendments is unchanged and continues to be
October 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 46422 (July 31, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 31, 2020, FR Rule Doc. 2020-15525,
beginning on page 46422, is corrected as follows:

Title 12

Sec.  44.20  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 46502, in the third column, in 12 CFR 44.20, in amendment
7b., add the words ``introductory text'' after the words ``paragraph
(d)(1)''.

Sec.  248.20   [Corrected]

0
2. On page 46509, in the second column, in 12 CFR 248.20, in amendment
14b., add the words ``introductory text'' after the words ``paragraph
(d)(1)''.

Sec.  351.20   [Corrected]

0
3. On page 46516, in the first column, in 12 CFR 351.20, in amendment
21b., add the words ``introductory text'' after the words ``paragraph
(d)(1)''.

Title 17

Sec.  75.10  [Corrected]

0
4. On page 46517, third column, in 17 CFR 75.10, remove ``(11) * * *''
and add in its place ``(11) SBICs and public welfare investment funds.
An issuer:''

Sec.  75.20   [Corrected]

0
5. On page 46522, in the second column, in 17 CFR 75.20, in amendment

28b., add the words ``introductory text'' after the words ``paragraph
(d)(1)''.

Sec.  255.10   [Corrected]

0
6. On page 46524, second column, in 17 CFR 255.10, remove ``(11) * *
*'' and add in its place ``(11) SBICs and public welfare investment
funds. An issuer:''

Sec.  255.20  [Corrected]

0
7. On page 46529, in the first column, in 17 CFR 255.20, in amendment
35b., add the words ``introductory text'' after the words ``paragraph
(d)(1)''.

Jonathan V. Gould,
Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on or about September 18, 2020.
James P. Sheesley,
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    Dated: September 21, 2020.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21100 Filed 9-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41906-41908]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16826]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0919; FRL-9913-92-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Conformity of General Federal Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Texas on
October 28, 2011. These revisions remove the State general conformity
provisions from the SIP as allowed by the 2005 amendments to the Clean
Air Act (Act or CAA). Upon the effective date of this final action, the
EPA Federal rules will govern conformity of general Federal actions
within the State of Texas. The revisions also update the narrative
portion of the SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with
sections 110 and 176 of the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 16, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by August 18,
2014. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0919, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions.
     Email: Jeffrey Riley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0919. 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 the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that 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 along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What is general conformity?

    General Conformity is a requirement of section 176(c) of the CAA.
Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal agencies could affect
a State, Tribal, or local agency's ability to attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Under General
Conformity, any action by the Federal government cannot: Cause or
contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; interfere
with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard;
increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any
standard in any area; or delay timely attainment of any standard, any
required interim emission reductions, or any other milestones, in any
area. The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the
provisions in section 176(c). EPA promulgated General Conformity SIP
regulations on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214) and required states to
adopt and submit a General Conformity SIP for approval by EPA (See 40
CFR Part 51, subpart W (sections 850 to 860 (1993)).

B. General Conformity Affected by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

    On August 10, 2005, Congress passed the SAFETEA-LU Act that, among
other things, amended the CAA to eliminate the requirement for States
to adopt and submit General Conformity SIPs. On April 5, 2010 (75 FR
17254), EPA updated the General Conformity SIP Rules to, among other
things, be consistent with the SAFETEA-LU by eliminating the Federal
regulatory requirement for states to adopt and submit general
conformity SIPs, instead making submission of a general conformity SIP
a state option. See 40 CFR 51.851.

C. Prior Texas General Conformity SIP Revision Action

    On March 11, 1998 (63 FR 11833), EPA approved Title 30 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) section 101.30, Conformity of General and
State Actions to State Implementation Plans. Texas' rule mirrored the
federal requirements in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B and Part 51, Subpart
W, and specifically referenced the 1993 Federal General Conformity SIP
rule. On July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43062), EPA made a ministerial correction
to the table in 40 CFR 52.2270(c) to reflect the correct title of the
EPA approved regulation in the Texas SIP. The ministerial correction
applied to the table entry for Section 101.30, revising the title to
``Conformity of General Federal Actions to State Implementation
Plans''.

D. State Submittal

    On October 28, 2011, the State of Texas submitted SIP revisions
consisting of a repeal of section 101.30, Conformity of General Federal
Actions to State Implementation Plans, in 30 TAC Chapter 101, General
Air Quality

Rules, Subchapter A, General Rules, as well as corresponding revisions
to the narrative portion of the SIP to eliminate references to repealed
federal rules. The repeal of the state rule is also intended to
eliminate the need for future state rule revisions as a result of
amendments to federal regulations.

II. EPA's Evaluation

    We have reviewed Texas' submittal to assure consistency with the
current Clean Air Act, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and EPA regulations
governing state procedures for general conformity (40 CFR Part 93,
Subpart B and 40 CFR 51.851). The October 28, 2011 revisions, upon
approval by EPA, removes Sec.  101.30, ``Determining Conformity of
General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans,''
from the SIP and revises the SIP Narrative. With the removal of Sec.
101.30 from the SIP, the federal rules in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B
will directly govern conformity of general federal actions in the State
of Texas. 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B continues to subject certain
federal actions to general conformity requirements without the need for
identical state rules and SIPs. Therefore, repealing the state rule
will not impact continuity of the general conformity program in Texas,
and consequently meets the requirements of section 110(l). Federal
agencies will only need to comply with the EPA General Conformity Rule
requirements in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B. In addition, Texas' October
28, 2011 SIP revision meets the requirements set forth in section 110
of the CAA with respect to adoption and submission of SIP revisions.

III. Final Action

    We are taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Texas
SIP submitted on October 28, 2011, that pertain to removal of Sec.
101.30, ``Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or
Federal Implementation Plans,'' from the SIP and update the narrative
portion of the SIP. The approval of Texas' conformity SIP revisions
will align the Texas SIP with the current Clean Air Act, as amended by
SAFETEA-LU, and the most recent EPA regulations governing state
procedures for general conformity.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on September 16,
2014 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment
by August 18, 2014. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Regulations in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by removing the entry for ``Section 101.30,
Conformity of General Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans'';
and
0
b. In paragraph (e) the second table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end for ``Conformity with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal/
      Name of SIP provision            geographic or      effective     EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Conformity with the National       Statewide...........   10/28/2011  7/18/2014 [Insert     The General
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                        Federal Register      Conformity SIP is
                                                                       citation].            removed from the
                                                                                Texas SIP; the
                                                                                federal rules at 40
                                                                                CFR Part 93,
                                                                                subpart B apply
                                                                                now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-16826 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


such as Manta \47\ and ReferenceUSA.\48\ As described in section VII.A
of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that 513
unique vessels used pilotage services during the years 2018 through
2020. These vessels are owned by 58 entities, of which 44 are foreign
entities that operate primarily outside the United States, and the
remaining 14 entities are U.S. entities. We compared the revenue and
employee data found in the company search to the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) small business threshold as defined in the SBA's
``Table of Size Standards'' for small businesses to determine how many
of these companies are considered small entities.\49\ Table 50 shows
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of the
U.S. entities and the small entity standard size established by the
SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See https://www.manta.com/.
    \48\ See https://resource.referenceusa.com/.
    \49\ See https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. SBA has established a ``Table of Size Standards'' for
small businesses that sets small business size standards by NAICS
code. A size standard, which is usually stated in number of
employees or average annual receipts (``revenues''), represents the
largest size that a business (including its subsidiaries and
affiliates) may be in order to remain classified as a small business
for SBA and Federal contracting programs. Accessed April 2021.

                             Table 50--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             NAICS                         Description                      Small entity  size standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211120.........................  Crude Petroleum Extraction.....  1,250 employees.
237990.........................  Other Heavy and Civil            $39.5 million.
                                  Engineering Construction.
238910.........................  Site Preparation Contractors...  $16.5 million.
483212.........................  Inland Water Passenger           500 employees.
                                  Transportation.
487210.........................  Scenic and Sightseeing           $8.0 million.
                                  Transportation, Water.
488330.........................  Navigational Services to         $41.5 million.
                                  Shipping.
523910.........................  Miscellaneous Intermediation...  $41.5 million.
561599.........................  All Other Travel Arrangement     $22.0 million.
                                  and Reservation Services.
982100.........................  National Security..............  Population of 50,000 People.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 14 U.S. entities, 7 exceed the SBA's small business
standards for small entities. To estimate the potential impact on the
seven small entities, the Coast Guard used their 2020 invoice data to
estimate their pilotage costs in 2022. Of the seven entities, from 2018
to 2020, only three used pilotage services in 2020. We increased their
2020 costs to account for the changes in pilotage rates resulting from
this rule and the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2021 Annual Review and
Revisions to Methodology final rule (86 FR 14184). We estimated the
change in cost to these entities resulting from this rule by
subtracting their estimated 2021 pilotage costs from their estimated
2022 pilotage costs and found the average costs to small firms will be
approximately $9,375, with a range of $354 to $41,331.\50\ We then
compared the estimated change in pilotage costs between 2021 and 2022
with each firm's annual revenue. In all cases, their estimated pilotage
expenses were below 0.35 percent of their annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ One company had a particularly disproportionate impact
because its vessel operated in all three districts. The impact for
that company was more than 15 times greater than the next smallest
company.

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

    In addition to the owners and operators discussed above, three U.S.
entities that receive revenue from pilotage services will be affected
by this rule. These are the three pilot associations that provide and
manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the
associations operate as partnerships, and one operates as a
corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS code
and small-entity size standards described above, but have fewer than
500 employees. Combined, they have approximately 65 employees in total
and, therefore, are designated as small entities. The Coast Guard
expects no adverse effect on these entities from this rule, because the
three pilot associations will receive enough revenue to balance the
projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours
(time on task) and pilots.
    Finally, the Coast Guard did not find any small not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields that will be impacted by this rule. We also
did not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations of
fewer than 50,000 people that will be impacted by this rule. Based on
this analysis, we conclude this rulemaking will not affect a
substantial number of small entities, nor have a significant economic
impact on any of the affected entities.
    Based on our analysis, this rule will have a less than 1 percent
annual impact on small entities; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132
and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements as described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services''. See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is
issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or
political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any
requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or
local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this
category. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93 addresses
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
(adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule
will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This
rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments),
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under DHS Management Directive 023-01,
Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A final Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
for this rulemaking. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    This rule meets the criteria for categorical exclusion (CATEX)
under paragraphs A3 and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-001-01, Rev. 1.\51\ Paragraph A3 pertains to the
promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the
development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures, manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents
of the following nature: (a) Those of a strictly administrative or
procedural nature; (b) those that implement, without substantive
change, statutory or regulatory requirements; (c) those that implement,
without substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other guidance
documents; (d) those that interpret or amend an existing regulation
without changing its environmental effect; (e) Technical guidance on
safety and security matters; or (f) guidance for the preparation of
security plans. Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which are
editorial or procedural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS_Instruction%20Manual%20023-01-001-01%20Rev%2001_508%20Admin%20Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule involves setting or adjusting the pilotage rates for the
upcoming shipping season to account for changes in district operating
expenses, changes in the number of pilots, and anticipated inflation.
In addition, the Coast Guard is (1) changing the way we determine the
number or pilots that are needed for the upcoming season in the
staffing model, and (2) including in our methodology a calculation for
a wage benchmark for apprentice pilots. All of these changes are
consistent with the Coast Guard's maritime safety missions.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes; Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 404

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303,
9304; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2, paragraphs
(II)(92)(a), (d), (e), (f).

0
2. Amend Sec.  401.110 by adding paragraphs (a)(18), (19) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec.  401.110   Definitions.

    (a) * * *
    (18) Apprentice Pilot means a person approved and certified by the
Director who is participating in an approved U.S. Great Lakes pilot
training and qualification program. This individual meets all the
minimum requirements listed in 46 CFR 401.211. This definition is only
applicable to determining which pilots may be included in the operating
expenses, estimates, and wage benchmark in Sec. Sec.  404.2(b)(7),
404.103(b), and 404.104(d) and (e).
    (19) Limited Registration is an authorization issued by the
Director, upon the request of the respective pilots association, to an
Apprentice Pilot to provide pilotage service without direct supervision
from a fully registered pilot in a specific area or waterway.
    (b) [Reserved]

0
3. Amend Sec.  401.220 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  401.220  Registration of pilots.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The number of pilots needed in each district is calculated by
totaling the area results by district and rounding them up to a whole
integer. * * *
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  401.405 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) to
read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Pilotage rates and charges.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The St. Lawrence River is $834;
    (2) Lake Ontario is $568;
    (3) Lake Erie is $610;
    (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$536;
    (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $342; and
    (6) The St. Marys River is $662.
* * * * *

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
5. The authority citation for part 404 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; DHS Delegation
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2, paragraphs (II)(92)(a), (f).

0
6. Amend Sec.  404.2 by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  404.2  Procedure and criteria for recognizing association
expenses.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Apprentice Pilot Expenses. The association's expenses for
Apprentice Pilots and Apprentice Pilots with Limited Registrations,
such as health care, travel expenses, training, and other expenses are
recognizable when determined to be necessary and reasonable.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  404.103 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  404.103  Ratemaking step 3: Estimate number of registered pilots
and apprentice pilots.

* * * * *
    (b) The Director projects, based on the number of persons applying
under 46

CFR part 401 to become Apprentice Pilots, traffic projections,
information provided by the pilotage association regarding upcoming
retirements, and any other relevant data, the number of Apprentice
Pilots and Apprentice Pilots with Limited Registrations expected to be
in training and compensated.

0
8. Amend Sec.  404.104 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  404.104  Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation
benchmark and apprentice pilot wage benchmark.

* * * * *
    (d) The Director determines the individual Apprentice Pilot wage
benchmark at the rate of 36 percent of the individual target pilot
compensation, as calculated according to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this
section.
    (e) The Director determines each pilot association's total
Apprentice Pilot wage benchmark by multiplying the Apprentice Pilot
compensation computed in paragraph (d) of this section by the number of
Apprentice Pilots and Apprentice Pilots with Limited Registrations
projected under Sec.  404.103(b).

    Dated: March 23, 2022.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06394 Filed 3-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Mr. Ken Hamilton

Executive Vice President

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

P.O. Box 1348

Laramie, Wyoming  82073

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

	Thank you for your letter of December 4, 2007, to Administrator
Johnson, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
proposal to revise the national ambient air quality standards for ozone.
 Your comments and recommendations on the proposed rule have been
forwarded to the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172).  The Administrator will issue his final decision
on the ozone standards by March 12, 2008.

	Again, thank you for your comments.  I appreciate the opportunity to be
of service, and I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

					Sincerely,

					Stephen D. Page

Director

                                                 Office of Air Quality
Planning

                                                              and
Standards

OAR/OAQPS/HEID/IO/Crabtree     AX-07-001-9943 Hamilton     Due: Jan. 14,
2008


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28864-28866]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13071]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86110; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

June 14, 2019.
    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 May 31, 2019, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt a rebate program for Market
Makers \3\ that submit aggressively priced quotes in SPIKES options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Lead Market Makers'',
``Primary Lead Market Makers'' and ``Registered Market Makers''
collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on June 1, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    On October 12, 2018, the Exchange received approval from the
Commission to list and trade on the Exchange, options on the
SPIKES[supreg] Index, a new index that measures expected 30-day
volatility of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (commonly known and referred
to by its ticker symbol, ``SPY'').\4\ The Exchange adopted its initial
SPIKES transaction fees on February 15, 2019.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84417 (October 12,
2018), 83 FR 52865 (October 18, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-14) (Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC to List and Trade on the Exchange Options
on the SPIKES\TM\ Index).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 85283 (March 11, 2019),
84 FR 9567 (March 15, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-11). (The Exchange
initially filed the proposal on February 15, 2019 (SR-MIAX-2019-04).
That filing was withdrawn and replaced with (SR-MIAX-2019-11)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Section (1)(a)(xi) of the Fee
Schedule to adopt a Market Turner Incentive Program (the ``Program'')
that will provide rebates to Market Makers that submit aggressively
priced quotes in options on SPIKES. The term ``Market Turner'' will
mean a Market Maker simple quote (not eQuote) that establishes and
maintains the new MIAX best bid (the ``MBB'') or the MIAX best offer
(``MBO'') in a SPIKES option. Under the Program, the Exchange will pay
a per contract rebate to the Market Turner for each contract that
executes as the MBB (MBO). The amount of the rebate shall be (i) $0.20
per executed contract, for options having a premium price greater than
$0.10, or (ii) $0.05 per executed contract, for options having a
premium price of $0.10 or less. The Exchange

notes that a Market Maker who is also a Maker but not a Market Turner
will not receive the Market Turner rebate and will receive the Maker
rate currently prescribed in the Simple and Complex Fee table in
Section (xi) of the Fee Schedule. The purpose of the Program is to
encourage Market Makers to submit aggressively-priced quotes in SPIKES
options, which will enable the Exchange to strengthen its market
quality for all market participants in SPIKES options.
    Under the Program, a Market Turner must submit a resting quote that
sets a more aggressive price, and subsequently does not become inferior
to another quote or order. A Market Turner will lose its Market Turner
status if a more aggressively priced resting quote or order price
improves the current Market Turner's quote. Market Turner status will
also be lost if the Market Turner's quote becomes inferior. Market
Turner quote size changes without any price change will not affect
Market Turner status. The Exchange also proposes that, under the
Program, Market Turner status is not available for quotes coming out of
the opening, reopening after a trading halt, or uncrossing. Further,
the Exchange proposes that there will not be Market Turner status for a
Taker, except when there is remaining interest that rests (becomes the
Maker).
    The Program is similar to a NBBO setter incentive plan in place at
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'').\6\ However, the Exchange notes
that there are several differences between MIAX's proposal and the plan
adopted by Cboe BZX: (1) The Program only includes rebates for Market
Makers in SPIKES options (a Proprietary Product) while Cboe BZX's plan
includes multi-listed options; (2) the Program will not require an ADV
threshold while Cboe BZX requires certain thresholds to be met; (3) the
Program has one level of rebate while Cboe BZX has different tier
levels; and (4) the Program requires that a ``Market Turner must submit
a resting quote that sets a more aggressive price, and subsequently
does not become inferior to another quote or order'' whereas under Cboe
BZX's plan, ``[a]n order that is entered at the most aggressive price
both on the [Cboe BZX] book and according to then current OPRA data
will be determined to have set the NBB or NBO for purposes of the NBBO
Setter Rebate without regard to whether a more aggressive order is
entered prior to the original order being executed.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63632 (January 3,
2011), 76 FR 1205 (January 7, 2011) (SR-BATS-2010-038).
    \7\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rebates are targeted at Market Makers in SPIKES
options. There are currently fewer than five (5) Market Makers in
SPIKES options that could benefit from these rebates, however the
Program is also designed to attract additional market makers (both
existing Market Maker members of MIAX as well as non-members to join
MIAX) to quote in SPIKES options. Thus, the Exchange estimates that,
overall, there would be fewer than fifteen (15) such market
participants that could benefit from these rebates. The proposed
rebates do not apply differently to different sizes of market
participants, however they do only apply to Market Makers (and not
EEMs). The Exchange believes it is reasonable to only offer rebates to
Market Makers because the Exchange is seeking continuous, two-sided
quoting liquidity providers for SPIKES options, in order to enhance
liquidity and spreads in SPIKES Options, which is traditionally
provided by Market Makers, as opposed to EEMs.
    The proposed rule change is to become operative June 1, 2019.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among Exchange Members \10\ and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the Program for
Market Makers in SPIKES options is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act in that the proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. The proposed fee changes are reasonably designed
because they are intended to incentivize Market Makers to quote
aggressively in SPIKES options on the Exchange, which will enable the
Exchange to strengthen its market quality for all market participants
in SPIKES options. In particular, the proposed changes are designed to
incentivize Market Makers in SPIKES options to enter quotes which
establish and maintain a new MBB or MBO on the Exchange in an effort to
qualify for a rebate as a Market Turner under the Program.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to have the Program rebates apply only to Market Makers
(as compared to Electronic Exchange Members \12\ (``EEMs'')) because
Market Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number of
obligations, including quoting obligations that other market
participants do not have. In particular, the proposed rebates will
encourage Market Maker quotes at the MBB or MBO, and is therefore
directly focused on encouraging aggressively priced liquidity in SPIKES
options. Further, Market Makers have added market making and regulatory
requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
For example, Market Makers have obligations to maintain continuous
markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to
contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and to not
make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent
with a course of dealing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means
the holder of a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic
Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish a separate
incentive program for Market Makers in SPIKES options in order to
encourage trading in SPIKES options on the Exchange. Defining the
proposed Program on the Fee Schedule promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
protects investors and the public interest by creating a clear
understanding of the Program.
    The proposed Program rebates are reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because they will apply similarly to all Market
Makers who trade in SPIKES options and establish a Market Turner quote.
All similarly

situated Market Makers are subject to the same transaction rebate
schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates constitute an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The
proposed rebates are available to all Market Maker Members of the
Exchange that quote in SPIKES options. The proposed rebates do not
apply to EEMs, because the Exchange is seeking to enhance the quality
of its markets in SPIKES options through introducing more competition
among market makers in SPIKES options. The Exchange believes that
offering the proposed rebates to Market Turners will cause Market
Makers to quote more aggressively, thus improving the overall market
quality in SPIKES options, for the benefit of all market participants
in SPIKES options. In order to increase competition among Market
Makers, the Exchange believes that it must pay rebates to Market
Makers. EEMs do not provide the same type of continuous, two-sided
market liquidity which is provided by Market Makers, therefore the
Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to
only offer the proposed rebates to Market Makers (and not EEMs).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes would increase intramarket competition by
incentivizing Market Makers to quote aggressively in SPIKES options,
which will enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of
contracts in SPIKES options traded on MIAX. To the extent that this
purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should
benefit from the improved market liquidity for the Exchange's SPIKES
options. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume in
SPIKES options that results from the anticipated increase in Market
Maker activity on the Exchange will benefit all market participants and
improve competition on the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes for Market Makers will be assessed equally to all such
Market Makers. While different fees are assessed to different market
participants in some circumstances, these different market participants
have different obligations and different circumstances as discussed
above. For example, Market Makers have quoting obligations that other
market participants (such as EEMs) do not have.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
propose rebates relate solely to SPIKES options, which are traded
exclusively on the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2019-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-29 and should be submitted on
or before July 11, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13071 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 14205]
[DOCID:fr21mr06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-2001-000]

Electric Quarterly Reports; Notice of Electric Quarterly Reports
Users Group Meeting

March 7, 2006.
    On April 25, 2002, the Commission issued Order No. 2001,\1\ a final
rule which requires public utilities to file Electric Quarterly
Reports. Order 2001-C, issued December 18, 2002, instructs all public
utilities to file these reports using Electric Quarterly Report
Submission Software. This notice announces a meeting for the EQR Users
Group to be held Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at FERC headquarters, 888
First Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will run from 10 a.m. to
4 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001,
67 FR 31043, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127 (April 25, 2002); reh'g
denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074, reconsideration and
clarification denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the workshop, Commission staff and EQR users will review and
update the technical compliance process and review clarifications and
additions to the EQR Requirements Guide. A detailed agenda and other
relevant documents will be provided at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eqr/groups-workshops.asp
 prior to the meeting.

    All interested parties are invited to attend. For those unable to
attend in person, limited access to the workshop will be available by
teleconference. Those interested in participating are asked to register
on the FERC Web site at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new /registration/

eqr-03-29-form.asp. There is no registration fee.
    Interested parties wishing to file comments may do so under the
above-captioned Docket Number. Those filings will be available for
review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).

For TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For additional information, please contact Brenda Devine of FERC's
Office of Market Oversight & Investigations at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4034 Filed 3-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 155 (Monday, August 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45798-45799]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17417]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0180]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Report of
Inspections Required by Airworthiness Directive, Part 39

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on March 31, 2021. The collection involves the member of the
public that may submit an Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)
request to the FAA by using the ADD External website. The information
to be collected will be used to support publicly disseminated
information to the FAA and/or is necessary because this information
supports the Department of Transpiration's strategic goal to promote
the public health and safety by working toward eliminating
transportation-related deaths and injuries.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 15, 2021.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Romero by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0056.
    Title: Report of Inspections Required by Airworthiness Directives,
Part 39.
    Form Numbers: There is no standard form to use for AMOC submission.
However, the public may access the AMOC External website to submit an
AMOC request to the FAA.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on March 31, 2021 (FRN citation 2021-06646). Alternative
Methods of Compliance (AMOC) are submitted to the FAA by the general
public. While anyone may submit an AMOC there is no standard form to
use. From Order 8110.103B Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC),
Section 3-2:
    3-2. AMOC Proposal. 14 CFR 39.19 states in part that ``anyone may
propose to FAA an alternative method of compliance or a change in the
compliance time, if the proposal provides an acceptable level of
safety.''
    a. Although a letter is preferred, AMOC proposals may be submitted
by

other means, such as email, fax, or telephone. AMOC proposals received
by telephone must be documented.
    An AMOC Response Letter is written by an internal FAA user and sent
to the AMOC Requester. The template may be generated from the ADD
Dashboard and follows the latest Order. There is not an FAA or OMB
number on this template.
    A member of the public may submit an AMOC request to the FAA by
using the AMOC external website. Registration is not needed to use this
website. External users must consent to the ``Terms of Use'' statement
before proceeding to the AMOC proposal web page. An AMOC is required if
an owner/operator of aircraft cannot comply with an AD or finds a
different method to comply with the actions specified in an AD, as
mandated by FAA Order 8110.103B.
    Respondents: The respondents are a member of the public who may
submit an AMOC request to FAA by using the AMOC External website. We
estimate that 25 ADs yearly will require reports of information and
findings. The average AD affects about 1,120 owners/operators.
Therefore, 25 ADs times 1,120 owners/operators per year equal 28,000
reports.
    Frequency: As needed.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: These reports, requiring an
average of 1 hour each to prepare, consume 28,000 reporting hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The total annualized cost to
respondents is $2,380,000. We base this on the 28,000 reporting hours
times an estimated hourly rate of $85/hour per respondent. The average
cost to the respondents per AD per year is $85.00 ($2,380,000 divided
by 28,000).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2021.
Patrick Idlett,
ASKME Program Manager, Office of Enterprise Program Management (AEM),
Project Portfolio Performance Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-17417 Filed 8-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


FENPROPATHRIN (127901)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: August 7, 2009

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2007.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2007.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) pesticide usage data from
the CropLife America Foundation are used only if data are not available
from the other sources.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2005 when 95% or more of a crop is
grown California.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

Friday, August 7, 2009

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Fenpropathrin (127901)

Sorted Alphabetically

	Percent Crop Ttd.

				Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Apples	20,000	10	15

2	Asparagus +	<500	<1	<2.5

3	Broccoli	<500	<1	<2.5

4	Cabbage	<500	<1	<2.5

5	Cantaloupes 	<500	<2.5	10

6	Cauliflower	<500	<1	<2.5

7	Cherries	<500	<1	<2.5

8	Cotton	4,000	<1	<2.5

9	Cucumbers	<500	<1	<2.5

10	Grapefruit 	2,000	5	20

11	Grapes	20,000	5	10

12	Lemons 	<500	<1	<2.5

13	Oranges 	20,000	5	30

14	Peanuts	1,000	<1	<2.5

15	Pears	2,000	5	20

16	Peppers	2,000	5	10

17	Pumpkins	<500	<1	<2.5

18	Squash	<500	<1	<2.5

19	Strawberries	7,000	25	50

20	Tomatoes	3,000	5	10

21	Watermelons	<500	<1	<2.5

All numbers rounded.

<500	Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient

<2.5	Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1	Less than 1 percent of crop treated

+	Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations
or as Section 18 emergency

exemptions when this report was run

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America
Foundation

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


                                   MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 phone<PHONE_NUMBER> fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Record FROM:		Christine Wong, Tetra Tech, Inc. DATE: 		February 6, 2009

SUBJECT:	Notes from correspondence with Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff

Background

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to research information on and to make contact with international regulatory personnel working in relevant oversight programs.

Methodology

Tt began by searching the docket records and the Internet for international intake technology regulatory agencies.  Tt staff concluded that making contact with personnel from Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the government agency responsible for overseeing programs and services that support the use and development of Canada's waterways and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for making international connections.

Tt first made contact with DFO by emailing the general information emailing addresses provided by the DFO Web site<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS> In this introductory email, Tt referenced the language in Section 30 of the Canada's Fisheries Act, requiring that:

      Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irrigating, manufacturing, power generation, domestic or other purposes shall, if the Minister deems it necessary in the public interest, be provided at its entrance or intake with a fish guard or a screen, covering or netting so fixed as to prevent the passage of fish from any Canadian fisheries waters into the water intake, ditch, channel or canal.        Tt also inquired about any specific policies, additional legislation, and approvals or permitting activities related to fish protection requirements for water extraction, or data related to the development of those policies and regulation.

Tt's introductory email also referenced the DFO's 1995 Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guidelines, a guidance document for implementing fish protection intake technologies in fresh waters, and asked if similar documents or other requirements existed for saline waters.

Tt's email was shared among the relevant DFO divisions and Tt staff made contact with Carole Grant, the Section Head for Habitat Evaluation in the Marine Environment and Habitat Management Division of the DFO (Carole.Grant@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).  Ms. Grant confirmed that the 1995 Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guidelines is the DFO's main guidance document for freshwater extraction and that no similar document exists for brackish or saline waters.  She noted that the guidance document is not a policy or regulatory document and "was developed by DFO to assist proponents/developers in the design and installation of fish screens for the protection of fish in areas where water is being extracted.  As stated in the guideline, the main objective is to provide a national standard-of-practice and guidance for end-of-pipe fish screens at freshwater intakes to prevent potential losses of fish due to entrainment or impingement."  Ms. Grant indicated that decisions about the individual permits are based on a "review [of] each application for any type of project involving water extractions based mainly on engineering expertise and related scientific advice regarding minimum flow requirements for any fish species present in the area."  She also noted that most, if not all, of the water extraction in projects in Newfoundland and other areas under her jurisdiction occur in freshwater.  She stated that she does not possess or know of the existence of any efficacy data on impingement and entrainment reduction technologies.

Ms. Grant referred Tt to Mr. Lonnie King, the Senior Habitat Advisor in the Habitat Protection Branch at DFO (Lonnie.King@dfo-mpo.gc.ca), to answer some follow-up questions about water intake facilities in Canada.  Mr. King indicated that he does not have any personal knowledge of facilities working with saltwater exaction, but speculated that there are likely many such facilities and recommended follow-up with the coastal provincial governments for specific examples.  He stated that there are hundreds of hydro-electric facilities across the country, thousands of water intakes, and likely tens of thousands of water crossings, but specific data on approximately how many facilities are permitted and what types of industries they represent would be difficult to obtain. He indicated that the number of nuclear facilities or hydro-electric projects might be obtained by contacting those agencies involved in managing them (e.g., the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board).

Mr. King clarified that Section 30 of the Fisheries Act does not represent all of the water extraction regulation (related to fish protection) in Canada.  He specified that "DFO administers a suite of sections known as the Habitat Protection Provisions of the Fisheries Act.  Withdrawing water may have implications on Fish Habitat, Fish Mortality or Fish Passage, which each have their own specific permitting requirements.  DFO also has responsibilities to administer the Species at Risk Act, as it applies to aquatic species."  Mr. King agreed with Ms. Grant that the permitting requirements for specific projects/facilities are administered by the local (provincial) government and are determined on a site-specific basis, depending on the fish species and habitat being affected, and what other provincial/territorial permitting processes may be in place.

Mr. King stated that the DFO fish screening guideline differentiates species based on body form and referenced the guidelines in Introduction to Fishway Design.  He indicated that there are various compilations of the fish swimming ability for specific species, referencing the data in Swimming performance and behaviour of fish species endemic to Newfoundland and Labrador: A literature review for the purpose of establishing design and water velocity criteria for fishways and culverts.   Mr. King noted that fish screens are just one means of deterring fish and that other technologies (e.g., sound and light deterrents) have been explored for fish protection, particularly for use at hydro-electric facilities.

Mr. King indicated that the DFO does not establish national minimum flow requirements or general requirements allowing for minimum fish swimming ability.  He stated that most of the data used by DFO are derived from laboratory flume experiments and some field studies.

Conclusion

Tt did not make contact with any Canadian DFO personnel that knew of national regulations or policies comparable to the U.S. 316(b) rules.  In Canada, information about specific facilities with water intakes and fish protection technologies used at water intakes appears to only be available at the provincial or regional level, rather than at the national level.