[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17226-17227]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0050]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Approval of a New
Information Collection Request: Lease and Interchange of Vehicles

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval, and invites public comment. This ICR will enable FMCSA to
document the burden associated with the for-hire truck leasing
regulations codified in 49 CFR part 376, ``Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles.'' These regulations require certain for-hire motor carriers
to have a formal lease when leasing equipment.

DATES: Please send your comments by April 28, 2014. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2013-0050. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Rodgers, Chief, Commercial
Enforcement and Investigations Division, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Lease and Interchange of Vehicles.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-XXXX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers authorized by the Secretary to
transport property that use leased equipment.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 32,100 for-hire motor carriers.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hour 7 minutes [68,100 estimated
annual burden hours/32,100 respondents = 2.121495327 or 2 hour 7
minutes].
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new information collection.
    Frequency of Response: One-time.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 68,100 (16,500 carriers x 0.5 hours
x 2 entities + 311,000 vehicles x 0.083 hours x 2 entities = 68,126
hours, rounded to the nearest hundred).
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized to require a motor carrier that uses motor vehicles not
owned by it to transport property under an arrangement with another
party to make the arrangement in writing. This written lease agreement
must specify its duration, the compensation to be paid by the motor
carrier providing transportation subject to jurisdiction under 49
U.S.C. 14102(a), ``Leased Motor Vehicles'' and signed by the parties.
The Secretary has delegated authority pertaining to leased motor
vehicles to FMCSA pursuant to 49 CFR 1.87(a)(6). The Agency's
regulations governing leased motor vehicles are at 49 CFR part 376.
    The rules were adopted to ensure that small trucking companies were
protected when they agreed to lease their equipment and drivers to
larger for-hire carriers. They also ensure that the government and
members of the public can determine who is responsible for a property-
carrying commercial motor vehicle. Prior to the regulations, some
equipment was leased without written agreements, leading to disputes
over which party to the lease was responsible for charges and actions
and, at times, who was legally responsible for the vehicle. Under 49
U.S.C. 14102(a), FMCSA ``may require a motor carrier providing for-hire
transportation that uses motor vehicles not owned by it to transport
property under an arrangement with another party to--
    (1) make the arrangement in writing signed by the parties
specifying its duration and the compensation to be paid by the motor
carrier;
    (2) carry a copy of the arrangement in each motor vehicle to which
it applies during the period the arrangement is in effect;
    (3) inspect the motor vehicles and obtain liability and cargo
insurance on them; and
    (4) have control of and be responsible for operating those motor
vehicles in compliance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary on
safety of operations and equipment, and with other applicable law as if
the motor vehicles were owned by the motor carrier.''
    The rules specify what must be covered in the lease, but leave open
how many responsibilities must be divided. The parties to the lease
determine numerous details between themselves.
    Part 376 applies only to certain motor carriers in interstate
commerce and only to certain leasing situations. The rules cover
leasing between a for-hire carrier that does not hold operating
authority and another for-hire carrier that does hold operating
authority. A for-hire motor carrier with or without operating authority
that leases its equipment and drivers to a private motor carrier is not
covered by the rule. A for-hire carrier with operating authority that
leases its equipment to a non- for hire motor carrier and operates
under its own authority is also not covered by the rule. Private
carriers that lease their equipment to for-hire motor carriers and for-
hire carriers with their own operating authority leasing to another
such carrier are subject to lesser requirements. For-hire carriers in
interstate commerce are exempt from the rules if they operate
exclusively in commercial zones. Commercial zones, last set by the ICC
in 1975, are generally defined as a municipality and a distance from
the limits of the municipality that ranges from 3 miles for cities with
populations less than 2,500 to 20 miles for cities of a million or more
people. Some municipalities have additional areas defined for them.
    Section 376.11 requires the following when the carrier leases
equipment (Lessee) from a party supplying the equipment (Lessor), but
does not hold

its own operating authority: (1) The lessor and lessee enter into a
formal agreement that includes certain provisions (49 CFR 376.12); and
(2) the lessee provides the lessor receipts specifying the equipment
being leased at the beginning and end of the lease. These two
provisions account for the burden in this information collection.

Comments From the Public

General Summary

    FMCSA received three comments to the 60-day Federal Register notice
published on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18666), regarding the Agency's
Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection: Lease
and Interchange of Vehicles. Comments were received from the Owner
Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA), Transportation
Intermediaries Association (TIA), and Sharp Auto Transport. Comments
and responsive considerations are as follows:
    OOIDA provided detailed comments, though they concluded that the
burden estimates are justified and the burden of compliance with truck
rules are ``minimal.'' OOIDA asked several questions. First, OOIDA
asked why FMCSA initiated a request for comments on this ICR, as well
as who, or what prompted the ICR, and what is the ICR's purpose.

FMCSA Response

    In 2009, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommended to FMCSA that the Agency require passenger motor carriers
be subject to the same limitations on the leasing of equipment as
interstate for-hire motor carriers of cargo (NTSB Recommendation H-09-
33).\1\ Since 2012, the OMB has published an FMCSA Unified Agenda entry
entitled ``Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of
Passengers,'' RIN 2126-AB44, addressing regulations governing the lease
and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles similar
to the leasing of equipment by interstate for-hire motor carriers of
cargo.\2\ FMCSA published a notice of public rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled, ``Lease and Interchange of Vehicles: Motor Carriers of
Passengers,'' (bus carrier NPRM) under RIN 2126-AB44 on September 20,
2013 (78 FR 57822). The proposal for bus carriers to address the NTSB
recommendation has similar information collection requirements as the
truck leasing rules. Therefore, FMCSA will coordinate the bus and truck
ICRs accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Transportation Safety Board. 2009. Motorcoach
Rollover on U.S. Highway 59 near Victoria, Texas, January 2, 2008.
Highway Accident Summary Report. NTSB/HAR-09/03/SUM. Washington, DC.
    \2\ http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=2126-AB44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the bus carrier NPRM is necessary to ensure that
unsafe passenger carriers cannot evade FMCSA oversight and enforcement
by operating under the authority of another carrier that exercises no
actual control over those operations. This action will enable the
FMCSA, the NTSB and our Federal and State partners to identify motor
carriers transporting passengers in interstate commerce and correctly
assign responsibility to these entities for regulatory violations
during inspections, compliance investigations, and crash studies. It
also provides the general public with the means to identify the
responsible motor carrier at the time of motorcoach transportation.
``Why is FMCSA attempting to study an area of regulation that Congress
largely left in the hands of private parties and that FMCSA has
steadfastly refused to become involved in despite several entreaties by
OOIDA in the past?''

FMCSA Response

    The detailed lease and interchange regulations for cargo-carrying
vehicles have been in effect since 1950 and are not within the scope of
the bus carrier NPRM. The ICR in this truck leasing ICR action will be
coordinated with that of the bus leasing NPRM to eventually calculate a
total burden for all regulations covering all leases and interchanges
of CMVs regulated by FMCSA.
    OOIDA correctly pointed out a mistake in the 60-day notice. ``This
ICR will enable FMCSA to document the burden associated with the
marking regulations codified in 49 CFR part 376. FMCSA incorrectly
identified a CMV marking notice instead of the lease and interchange
regulations that are codified in 49 CFR part 376. This error has been
corrected in this notice and the associated Supporting Statement for
this ICR.
    Sharp Transport and TIA both believe the elimination of written
lease and interchange requirements would be a mistake. TIA believes
that leasing requirements alleviate concerns within the transportation
industry of fraudulent entities in the supply chain, by placing
safeguards in the industry. TIA believes if this requirement is
eliminated it will make it easier for carriers who are illegally
brokering to continue the detrimental practice. Sharp Transport
believes removal of the provisions will make enforcement impossible.

FMCSA Response

    FMCSA has not proposed elimination of written leasing agreements.
FMCSA is merely attempting to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 requirements and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at 5 CFR 1320 to calculate an accurate estimate of the time
and cost burdens to for-hire freight motor carriers to collect
information during lease negotiations and document the lease, receipts,
and other paperwork required by 49 CFR part 376. The 60-day notice
published on March 27, 2013 was FMCSA's first required step in getting
OMB to approve the part 376 estimates of time and cost burdens. This
30-day notice is the second required step in the OMB approval process
for the part 376 estimates.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 12, 2014.
G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-06839 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29139-29142]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74968; File No. SR-BATS-2015-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

May 14, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 6, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BATS'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated
the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the ``Options Pricing'' section of
its fee schedule, effective immediately, in order to modify pricing
charged by the Exchange's options platform (``BATS Options'')
including: (i) add a new standard rate and a fee code NM

associated with Market Maker \6\ orders that add liquidity in non-Penny
Pilot Securities; \7\ (ii) add a new footnote 7 entitled ``Market Maker
Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers''; (iii) simplifying the Exchange's
physical connection fees; (iv) certain corresponding changes associated
with the new rebates associated with Market Maker orders in non-Penny
Pilot Securities; and (v) a non-substantive, clarifying change in
footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Market Maker'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the OCC.
    \7\ ``Penny Pilot Securities'' are those issues quoted pursuant
to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Rate in Market Maker Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities
    Currently, the Exchange offers a rebate of $0.65 per contract for
Market Maker orders that add liquidity in non-Penny Pilot Securities.
The Exchange is proposing to create a new fee code NM and to change the
standard rate for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in non-Penny
Pilot Securities to a rebate of $0.42 per contract. Such orders will be
eligible for the enhanced rebates available under the NBBO Setter
Tiers, the Quoting Incentive Program Tiers, and the new Market Maker
Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers proposed below. The Exchange is not
proposing to change pricing for Professional \8\ or Firm \9\ orders or
for any Market Maker orders that do not add liquidity non-Penny Pilot
Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Professional'' applies to any transaction identified by a
Member as such pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1.
    \9\ ``Firm'' applies to any transaction identified by a Member
for clearing in the Firm range at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers
    As described above, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of
$0.65 per contract for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in non-
Penny Pilot Securities, which it proposes to change to $0.42 per
contract. The Exchange is also proposing to add new footnote 7 to its
fee schedule entitled ``Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers''
in order to offer enhanced rebates for Market Maker orders in non-Penny
Pilot Securities to Members that meet certain thresholds. Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to: (i) Provide a rebate of $0.45 per
contract where the Member has an ADV \10\ equal to or greater than
0.30% of average TCV; \11\ and (ii) provide a rebate of $0.52 where the
Member has an ADV equal to or greater than 1.00% of average TCV. Where
a Member does not meet either of these thresholds, they would receive
the standard rebate of $0.42 per contract, as proposed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of contracts added or removed, combined, per day.
    \11\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated transaction
reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply, excluding
volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physical Connection Fees
    The Exchange currently maintains a presence in two third-party data
centers: (i) The primary data center where the Exchange's business is
primarily conducted on a daily basis, and (ii) a secondary data center,
which is predominantly maintained for business continuity purposes. The
Exchange currently assesses fees to Members and non-Members of $1,000
for any 1G physical port connection at either data center and of $2,500
for any 10G physical port connection at either data center. The
Exchange also provides market participants with the ability to access
the Exchange's network through another data center entry point, or
Point of Presence (``PoP''), at a data center other than the Exchange's
primary or secondary data center.\12\ The Exchange currently charges
$2,000 for any 1G physical port to connect to the Exchange in any data
center where the Exchange maintains a PoP other than the Exchange's
primary or secondary data center and $5,000 per month for each single
physical 10G port provided by the Exchange to any Member or non-member
in any data center where the Exchange maintains a PoP other than the
Exchange's primary or secondary data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70199 (August 14,
2013), 78 FR 51250 (August 20, 2013) (SR-BATS-2013-036) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Introduce a Connectivity Option
Through Points of Presence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to simplify its pricing structure by imposing
a uniform rate for physical ports regardless of the data center in
which the port connection is made. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to charge $1,000 per month for all 1G physical port connections and
$2,500 per month for all 10G physical ports in any location where the
Exchange offers the ability to connect to Exchange systems, including
the secondary data center and any PoP location.
Corresponding Changes
    In conjunction with the changes proposed above, the Exchange is
proposing to make certain corresponding changes, including: (i) Add fee
code NM references in footnotes 4 and 5; (ii) removing the reference to
``MM'' (short for Market Maker) from the description in fee code NA;
and (iii) remove the words ``Market Maker Add Volume'' from both Market
Maker Add Volume Tier 1 and Tier 2 in footnote 6.
Clarifying Change
    The Exchange is proposing to add references to the fee codes PA and
PF in footnote 5. While the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table
indicates that footnote 5 applies to both fee codes PA and PF, the fee
codes are not included in the footnote itself as fee codes to which the
footnote is applicable.
Effectiveness Date
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to implement the amendments
to its fee schedule effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\13\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed reduction of the standard rebate
for Market Maker orders in non-Penny Pilot Securities that add
liquidity is a reasonable, fair and equitable allocation of fees and
rebates because it will provide Members with a greater incentive to
increase their participation on BATS Options in order to receive a
higher rebate by meeting any of the enhanced rebate tiers for which the
orders are eligible, including the NBBO Setter Tiers, the Quoting
Incentive Program Tiers, and the Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add
Volume Tiers proposed herein. Finally, while adjusting the standard
rebate of $0.65 per contract to remove liquidity to $0.42 per share
will obviously result in a

reduction in rebates paid per contract to Members, the Exchange
believes that any potential negative impact of this change will be
outweighed by the Exchange's ability to apply the cost savings to other
areas of the business, including enhanced rebates, reduced fees, and
improved technology on the BATS Options. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed fee change is non-discriminatory because it would
apply uniformly to all Members [sic].
    Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently maintained
on BATS Options have been widely adopted by equities and options
exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an
equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are
reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of
higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed addition of Market Maker Non-
Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers is a reasonable, fair and equitable
allocation of fees and rebates because it will provide Members with a
greater incentive to increase their participation on BATS Options in
order to receive a higher rebate, which will result in enhanced market
quality for all Members.
    The Exchange reiterates that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
Physical Connection Fees
    The Exchange believes that providing uniform rates for all 1G and
10G physical connections to Exchange is reasonable because such change
represents a reduction in fees for any Member that connects to the
Exchange at a PoP location and no change to fees for any Member located
in the Exchange's primary or secondary data center. The Exchange also
believes that the proposal is equitably allocated and not unreasonably
discriminatory because, as proposed, market participants will be able
to access the Exchange at uniform rates regardless of whether such
access is at the Exchange's primary or secondary data center location
or another location where the Exchange offers access.
Corresponding and Clarifying Changes
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the corresponding and
clarifying changes discussed above are non-substantive and would
contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by
helping to avoid confusion with respect the Exchange fee schedule.

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. With respect to the proposed
new rebates for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in non-Penny
Pilot Securities, particularly the enhanced rebates available under the
Market Maker Non-Penny Pilot Add Volume Tiers, the Exchange does not
believe that any such changes burden competition, but instead, that
they enhance competition, as they are intended to increase the
competitiveness of BATS Options. As stated above, the Exchange notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if the
deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to physical
port fees represents a significant departure from previous pricing
offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's
competitors. Rather, as described above, the Exchange is simply
normalizing its fees for physical access to the Exchange regardless of
the location where a physical connection is made. The offering is
consistent with the Exchange's own economic incentives to facilitate as
many market participants as possible in connecting to its market.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 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-BATS-2015-38 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-BATS-2015-38. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change;

the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
BATS-2015-38 and should be submitted on or before June 10, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12147 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41909-41913]
[DOCID:fr01au07-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209; FRL-8139-1]

Rimsulfuron; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
rimsulfuron in or on almond, hulls; fruit, citrus group 10; fruit,
pome, group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape; nut, tree, group 14; and
pistachio. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 1, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 1, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vickie Walters, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection
to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. You must file your objection or request

a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR
part 178 on or before October 1, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40100) (FRL-8058-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F7019) by E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Laurel Run Plaza, P.O.
Box 80038, Wilmington, DE 19880-0038. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.478 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide rimsulfuron, N-((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-
3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide, in or on almond hulls, citrus/
pome/stone fruit crop group, grapes, pistachios and tree nut crop group
at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc, the
registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice
of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the data support a tolerance of 0.09 ppm for almond,
hulls.
    Based on Agency procedures concerning commodity names, the Agency
is correcting the terminology for pending commodities and crop groups
to read almond, hulls; fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 11;
fruit, stone, group 12; grape; nut, tree, group 14, and pistachio.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for residues of rimsulfuron on almond, hulls at 0.09 ppm; fruit,
citrus, group 10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.01 ppm; fruit,
stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at
0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by rimsulfuron as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov.
 The referenced document is entitled Rimsulfuron:

Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Almonds, Citrus
Fruits, Grapes, Pistachio, Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, and Tree Nuts and
is available in the docket established by this action, which is
described under ADDRESSES, and is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209-
0002.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) are
used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable uncertainty/safety factors. Short-, intermediate- and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of
all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles, EPA uses in risk
characterization and a

complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for rimsulfuron used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document

Rimsulfuron, Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Almonds,
Citrus Fruits, Grapes, Pistachio, Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, and Tree
Nuts at page 21 in Document 0002 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0209.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to rimsulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing rimsulfuron tolerances in 40 CFR
180.478. EPA assessed dietary exposures from rimsulfuron in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for rimsulfuron; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which
there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues.
Anticipated residues or estimates of percent crop treated (PCT) were
not used.
    iii. Cancer. Rimsulfuron is classified as a ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans'' based on acceptable chronic/carcinogenic
studies in rats and mice. Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment was
not performed.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for rimsulfuron in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
rimsulfuron. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
.

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of rimsulfuron for
acute exposures are estimated to be 5.596 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.016 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 0.120 ppb for surface water and 0.016 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.120 ppb was used to
access the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Rimsulfuron is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to rimsulfuron and any other
substances and rimsulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that rimsulfruon has a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (10X) tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when
reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if
reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety
factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the prenatal
developmental toxicity study in rats, no developmental toxicity was
seen at the highest dose tested. In the prenatal developmental toxicity
study in rabbits, and in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats,
developmental/offspring toxicity were seen in the presence of maternal/
systemic toxicity. Consequently, there is no evidence (quantitative or
qualitative) of increased susceptibility following prenatal and
postnatal exposures.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for rimsulfuron is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that rimsulfuron is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that rimsulfuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground water and
surface water modeling estimates were used. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by rimsulfuron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/
safety factors.

For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate- and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable
uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. The existing data showed no indication that
rimsulfuron could cause adverse effects in the U.S. population or any
population subgroups based on a single dose. Therefore, there is not a
concern for acute dietary exposure to the general population or any
population subgroup.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in Unit
III.C.ii. for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
rimsulfuron from food and water will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for the
U.S. population, and for each of the population subgroups including the
most highly exposed population subgroup (children 1-2 years old). There
are no residential uses for rimsulfuron that result in chronic
residential exposure to rimsulfuron. Based on the use pattern, chronic
residential exposure to residues of rimsulfuron is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Rimsulfuron is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the
sum of the risk from food and water.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Rimsulfuron is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the
sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's
level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Rimsulfuron is
classified as a ``not likely human carcinogen.'' Therefore, EPA does
not expect that rimsulfuron will pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to rimsulfuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Currently, a high pressure liquid chromatography method exists for
enforcement of tolerances for residues of rimsulfuron in or on corn,
potato, and tomato commodities. Two LC/MS/MS methods have been proposed
for enforcement of tolerances on pending crops and crop grouping.
Because the extraction procedures do not differ significantly from the
extraction procedures of the existing enforcement method, Agency method
validation will not be required.
    Adequate enforcement methodology (high pressure liquid
chromatography MS/MS detection) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs established for
residues of rimsulfuron in or on almond, hull; citrus fruit; pome
fruit; stone fruit; tree nuts; grape; or pistachio.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of
rimsulfuron, N-((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)aminocarbonyl)-3-
(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide in or on almond, hulls at 0.09
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.01
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree,
group 14 at 0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 this final rule in
the Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 16, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--AMENDED

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
Section 180.478 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.478  Rimsulfuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls..............................................         0.09
                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10....................................         0.01
Fruit, pome, group 11......................................         0.01
Fruit, stone, group 12.....................................         0.01
Grape......................................................         0.01
Nut, tree, group 14........................................         0.01
Pistachio..................................................         0.01
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-14543 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 28667]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Land Release for Plattsburgh International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice, Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on the Plattsburgh International Airport (PBG), Plattsburgh,
New York, Notice of Proposed Release from Aeronautical Use, and from
the Airport, of approximately 1.73 +/- acres of airport property, to
allow for non-aeronautical development.
    The parcel is located on the southeast corner of the Plattsburgh
International Airport. The Tract (Tract I-901) is currently part of
Plattsburgh International Airport and is currently vacant. The
requested release is for the purpose of permitting the airport owner
(Clinton County) to sell and convey title of 1.73 +/- acres for
expansion of a single family residence owned by Mr. Brian K. and Karen
L. Dumesnil.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by
appointment only, for inspection at the Office of the Clinton County
Legislature and the FAA New York Airport District Office.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, FAA New
York Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden
City, New York 11530. In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to
the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. James R. Langley, Chairman,
Clinton County Legislature, at the following address: Clinton County
Government Center, 137 Margaret Street, Plattsburgh, New York 12901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven M. Urlass, Manager, New York
Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City,
New York 11530; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 1st Century (AIR21) requires the FAA
to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment before the
Secretary may waive a Sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain
airport land for aeronautical use.

    Issued in Garden City, New York, on May 7, 2012.
Steven M. Urlass,
Manager, New York Airports District Office, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-11698 Filed 5-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40063-40065]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0556; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-30-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated
Helicopters (Type Certificate previously Held by Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-64E
helicopters. The existing AD requires checks of the main rotor blades
for a crack. This proposed AD would retain the actions of the existing
AD, would reflect that the type certificate (TC) for this model
helicopter has been transferred to Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated
(Erickson), and expand the applicability to include the similar
Erickson Model S-64F helicopters. This proposed AD is prompted by a
need to expand the applicability to include Model S-64F helicopters and
clarify the applicable main rotor blades by part number. The proposed
actions are intended to detect a crack in the main rotor blade and
prevent blade separation and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 3,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson/Compliance
Officer, 3100 Willow Springs Rd., PO Box 3247, Central Point, OR 97502;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JC Lin, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On December 6, 1990, we issued AD 90-26-12, Amendment 39-6841 (55
FR 51406, December 14, 1990) for Sikorsky Model S-64E helicopters. The
AD requires repetitive checks of the Blade Inspection Method (BIM)
indicator of each main rotor blade to determine whether the blade
pressure has been compromised by a blade crack. These checks, which may
be performed by the pilot, must be accomplished and recorded before the
first flight of each day and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
three hours time-in-service (TIS) for helicopters engaged in seven or
more external lifts per hour or five hours TIS for operations with less
than seven external lifts per hour or operations without an external
load, with each check-interval measured from the last check. Those
actions are intended to detect fatigue cracks in the blade, which could
result in separation of the blade and loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 90-26-12 (55 FR 51406, December 14, 1990) for
Model S-64E helicopters, cracks have been discovered on the main rotor
blades of Model S-64F helicopters. The main rotor blades used on the
Model S-64F helicopter are similar to the main rotor blades used on the
Model S-64E helicopter; however, Model S-64F was not included in AD 90-
26-12. Also, on February 13, 1992, Sikorsky transferred TC H6EA for
Model S-64E and S-64F helicopters to Erickson. Erickson later issued
Service Bulletin (SB) No. 64F15-2, Revision A, dated July 14, 1999, for
the Model S-64F and SB No. 64B15-4D, Revision D, dated January 26,
2001, for the Model S-64E. Erickson released SB No. 64F15-2 to provide
the operation and check procedures for BIM blades installed on the
Model S-64F helicopters. Several blade spars with a crack emanating
from corrosion pits and other damage have been found because of BIM
pressure indications, similar to the Model S-64E helicopters. The
checks in SB No. 64F15-2 for the Model S-64F are the same as those
required by AD 90-26-12 for the Model S-64E helicopters. We also
determined that the primary temperatures listed in the Required Actions
section of this AD should be converted from degrees Celsius to degrees
Fahrenheit and part numbers for the applicable main rotor blades should
be specified for increased clarity.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would supersede AD 90-26-12 (55 FR 51406, December
14, 1990), to retain the same checks and procedures, but in a revised
format to meet current publication requirements and to expand the
applicability to include both the Erickson S-64E and S-64F helicopters.
This proposed AD would require recurring checks of the BIM indicator on
each blade to determine whether the BIM indicator is displaying a black
or red color, which is an indication that the blade pressure may have
been compromised by a blade crack. If there is a black or red color BIM
indication, the proposed AD would require checking the BIM indicator to
determine whether it is functioning properly. If the BIM indicator is
malfunctioning, correcting it before further flight would be required.
If the BIM indicator is functioning properly, and the blade BIM
indication remains red or black, replacing the blade before further
flight would be required. The proposed AD would require that the checks
be accomplished and recorded before the first flight of each day and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed three hours TIS for helicopters
engaged in seven or more external lifts per hour or five hours TIS for
operations with less than seven external lifts per hour or operations
without an external load, with each check-interval measured from the
last check. These checks may be performed by an owner/operator (pilot)
and must be entered into the helicopter maintenance records in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may
perform these checks because they involve only a check of the BIM
pressure indicators and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a
mechanic. This authorization is an exception to our standard
maintenance regulations.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 27 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. Each visual BIM pressure indicator
color check would take about 0.1 work-hour at an average labor rate of
$85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, each visual BIM pressure
indicator color check would cost about $9 per helicopter or $230 for
the fleet. Each BIM pressure indicator function check would take about
0.25 work-hour, and would cost about $21, or $574 for the fleet.
    If a main rotor blade must be replaced, it would take about 2 work-
hours and required parts would cost about $125,000. Based on these
figures, it would cost about $125,170 per helicopter to replace a main
rotor blade.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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)
90-26-12 (55 FR 51406, December 14, 1990), and adding the following new
AD:

Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated (Type Certificate Previously Held By
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation): Docket No. FAA-2013-0556;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-30-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated (Erickson)
Model S-64E and S-64F helicopters, with rotary wing blade assembly
(main rotor blade), part number (P/N) 6415-20201-043, -045, -047, -
048, -049, -050, or -051; or 6415-20601-041, -042, -043, -044, -045,
-046, -047, -048, -049, -050, -051, or -052, installed, certificated
in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the main
rotor blade (blade), which could result in blade separation and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 90-26-12, Docket No. 90-ASW-27, Amendment
39-6841 (55 FR 51406, December 14, 1990).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 3, 2013.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, visually check the Blade Inspection
Method (BIM) pressure indicators of the main rotor blades for a
black or red color indication.
    (2) Before further flight, replace any blade with a black or red
color indication in a BIM pressure indicator with an airworthy part
of the same part number unless the black or red color indication is
determined to be the result of BIM system malfunction.
    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(2) of this AD: Paragraphs (f)(4)(i-iv)
of this AD specify how to determine if a BIM system is functioning
correctly.
    (3) Repeat the visual BIM pressure indicator check required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD prior to the first flight of each day
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed:
    (i) Three hours time-in-service (TIS) from the last check for
helicopters engaged in seven or more external lifts per hour; or
    (ii) Five hours TIS from the last check for helicopters engaged
in either less than seven external lifts per hour or operation
without external cargo.
    (4) Prior to the first flight of each day, check the BIM
pressure indicator for proper function as follows:
    (i) Press in and hold the manual test lever (grenade-type
handle) on the raised area of the handle over the pin-type actuation
plunger. Do not handle the indicator glass bulb since the heat of
the hand may change the internal reference pressure and result in an
erroneous indicator reading.
    (ii) Depress the actuation plunger fully to shut off the
pressure completely from the blade into the indicator. If necessary,
press with the thumbs of both hands to overcome the plunger spring
force.
    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this AD: If pressure is
applied to the end of the lever on the flat area, the actuation
plunger will not fully depress.
    (iii) Verify proper operation of the indicator by observing that
a full-black or full-red (unsafe) indication appears in not less
than 10 or more than 30 seconds after depressing the plunger for a
temperature of 20 degrees F (-6.7 degrees C) or above. At lower
temperatures, extend the upper limit to the corresponding time as
follows:
    (A) 19 to 0 degrees F (-7.2 to -17.8 degrees C); upper limit of
35 seconds.
    (B) -1 to -20 degrees F (-18.3 to -28.9 degrees C); upper limit
of 40 seconds.
    (C) -21 to -40 degrees F (-29.4 to -40.0 degrees C); upper limit
of 50 seconds.
    (D) -41 to -60 degrees F (-40.5 to -51.1 degrees C); upper limit
of 60 seconds.
    (iv) Release the lever and observe that the black or red
indication snaps back immediately, leaving an all-white or all-
yellow (safe) indication.
    (v) If the indicator does not meet the specified requirements,
then either identify and correct the BIM indicator malfunction or
replace the suspect main rotor blade with an airworthy blade of the
same part number prior to further flight.
    (5) The checks required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(4)(i-iv) of
this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at
least a private pilot certificate, and must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with
14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must
be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(g) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits will not be issued.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: JC Lin, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated Service Bulletins No. 64B15-4D,
Revision D, dated January 26, 2001 for the Model S-64E and No.
64F15-2, Revision A, dated July 14, 1999 for the Model S-64F, which
are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information
about the subject of this AD. For service information, contact
Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, ATTN: Chris Erickson/Compliance
Officer, 3100 Willow Springs Rd, PO Box 3247, Central Point, OR
97502; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy of this
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

 (j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210, Main Rotor
Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 18, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-15954 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 93)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27460]
[DOCID:fr13my08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0283]

Special Local Regulation: Harvard-Yale Regatta, New London, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the regulation for Regattas and
Marine Parades found at 33 CFR 100.101 for the annual Harvard-Yale
Regatta, Thames River, New London, CT from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on June 14,
2008. This action is necessary to control the anticipated heavy
recreational vessel traffic of both event participants and observers,
and other waterways users within the immediate vicinity of the event,
thus providing for the safety of life and property of the maritime
community on the affected navigable waters. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter, transit, or remain in the
regulated area within the Thames River, as detailed in 33 CFR 100.101,
unless participating in the event or unless authorized by the Coast
Guard patrol commander.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.101 will be effective from 2 p.m.
to 5 p.m. on June 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant D. Miller, Chief, Waterways
Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at (203) 468-
4596.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the permanent
special local regulation found in 33 CFR 100.101 concerning the
Harvard-Yale Regatta, Thames River, New London, CT from 2 p.m. to 5
p.m. on June 14, 2008. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.101, a
portion of the navigable waters of the Thames River will be closed
during the effective period to all persons and vessel traffic, except
for vessels participating in the event and local, state or Coast Guard
patrol craft. Further, 33 CFR 100.101 provides regulations for mooring,
anchoring and transiting near the event race course. The Coast Guard
may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 100.101 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register,
public notification will be made via the First Coast Guard District
Local Notice to Mariners and marine safety broadcasts.

    Dated: April 30, 2008.
D.A. Ronan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
 [FR Doc. E8-10535 Filed 5-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1946-1947]
[FR Doc No: 2012-483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0027; OMB No. 1660-0107]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, Public Assistance Customer Satisfaction Survey

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Public Assistance Customer Satisfaction Survey.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0107.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 519-0-1 T, Public Assistance
Customer Satisfaction Survey (Telephone); FEMA Form 519-0-1 INT, Public
Assistance Customer Satisfaction Survey (Web); FEMA Form 519-0-1,
Public Assistance Customer Satisfaction Survey (Fill-able).
    Abstract: This collection of information enables the Agency to
garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely
manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service
delivery. The information collected from customers and stakeholders
will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and
satisfying experience with the Agency's programs. This feedback will
provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences
and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or
focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local, and
Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,740.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: .34 burden hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,695 burden hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $131,394.76. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no
annual start-up or capital costs. The total annual non-labor cost is
$7,344. The cost to the Federal government is $828,407.59.

John G. Jenkins, Jr.,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-483 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60940-60941]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25600]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Rule 17Ad-11
    [SEC File No. 270-261, OMB Control No. 3235-0274]

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the existing collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ad-11 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-11) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-11 requires every registered recordkeeping transfer agent
to report to issuers and its appropriate regulatory agency in the event
that the aggregate market value of an aged record difference exceeds
certain thresholds. A record difference occurs when an issuer's records
do not agree with those of securityholders as indicated, for instance,
on certificates presented to the transfer agent for purchase,
redemption or transfer. An aged record difference is a record
difference that has existed for more than 30 calendar days. In
addition, the rule requires every recordkeeping transfer agent to
report to its appropriate regulatory agency in the event of a failure
to post certificate detail to the master securityholder file within
five business days of the time required by Rule 17Ad-10 (17 CFR
240.10). Also, a transfer agent must maintain a copy of any report
required under Rule 17Ad-11 for a period of not less than three years
following the date of the report, the first year in an easily
accessible place. These recordkeeping requirements assist the
Commission and other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer
agents and ensuring compliance with the rule.
    Because the information required by Rule 17Ad-11 is already
available to transfer agents, any collection burden for small transfer
agents is minimal. Based on a review of the number of Rule 17Ad-11
reports the Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation received since 2012, the Commission estimates
that 10 respondents will file a total of approximately 12 reports
annually. The Commission staff estimates that, on average, each report
requires approximately 30 minutes to prepare. Therefore, the Commission
staff estimates that the total annual hourly burden to the entire
transfer agent industry is approximately six hours (30 minutes x 12
reports). Assuming an average hourly rate of $25 for a transfer agent
staff employee, the average total internal cost of the report is
$12.50. The total annual internal cost of compliance for the
approximated 10 respondents is approximately $150.00 (12 reports x
$12.50).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 2, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25600 Filed 10-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61039]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PH06-71-000; PH06-72-000; PH06-73-000; PH06-74-000; PH06-
75-000; PH06-76-000; PH06-77-000; PH06-78-000; PH06-79-000; PH06-80-
000; PH06-81-000; PH06-82-000; PH06-83-000; PH06-84-000; PH06-85-000;
PH06-87-000; PH06-88-000; PH06-89-000; PH06-90-000; PH06-91-000; PH06-
92-000; PH06-93-000; PH06-94-000; PH06-95-000; PH06-96-000; PH06-97-
000; PH06-98-000; PH06-99-000; PH06-100-000; PH06-101-000; PH06-102-
000]

Questar Corporation; Questar Corporation; C&T Enterprises, Inc.;
NWO Resources, Inc.; TECO Energy, Inc.; FPL Group, Inc.; Enbridge Gas
Distribution, Inc.; Phelps Dodge Corporation; Stanley Works; Sierra
Pacific Resources Operating Companies; UnionBanCal Corporation;
UnionBanCal Equities, Inc.; Bankers Commercial Corporation;
EnergySouth, Inc.; Barrick Gold Corporation; PG&E Corporation; Trans-
Elect, Inc.; Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.; Energy West Resources,
Inc.; Horizon Asset Management, Inc.; Ironhill Transmission, LLC; UIL
Holdings Corporation; Brookfield Asset Management Inc.; ATC Management
Inc.; AES Corporation; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; ArcLight
Capital Holdings, LLC; National Fuel Gas Company; LGB Cap Rock LLC;
Empire Distribution Electrical Company; The Laclede Group, Inc.; Sowood
Capital Management LP; Notice of Effectiveness of Holding Company and
Transaction Exemptions and Waivers

October 11, 2006.
    Take notice that in August and September 2006 the holding company
and transaction exemptions and waivers requested in the above-captioned
proceedings are deemed to have been granted by operation of law
pursuant to 18 CFR 366.4.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17210 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P