[Federal Register: July 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 36292-36293]
[DOCID:fr22jy09-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60306; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Its
Temporary and Permanent Cease and Desist Authority on a Permanent Basis

July 14, 2009.
    On May 18, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt its rules regarding the issuance of issue
temporary and permanent cease and desist orders on a permanent basis.
The proposal was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
9, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60028 (June 2,
2009), 74 FR 27364 (June 9, 2009) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since May 2003, pursuant to a pilot program approved by the
Commission \4\ and subsequent extensions,\5\ FINRA has had the
authority to issue temporary cease and desist orders (``TCDOs''); \6\
impose permanent cease and desist orders as a remedy in disciplinary
cases; and enforce cease and desist orders. FINRA proposed to make the
existing pilot program permanent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47925 (May 23,
2003), 68 FR 33548 (June 4, 2003) (Order Approving File No. SR-NASD-
98-80).
    \5\ The extensions were filed for immediate effectiveness and
were therefore not approved by the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51860 (June 16, 2005), 70 FR 36427 (June
23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-061); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55819 (May 25, 2007), 72 FR 30895 (June 4, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-033);
and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60035 (June 3, 2009), 74 FR
27360 (June 9, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2009-034).
    \6\ A TCDO is a preliminary order issued in connection with an
underlying disciplinary proceeding that has been initiated or will
be initiated immediately.
    \7\ The rule filing does not make any substantive changes to the
existing pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to

a national securities association.\8\ In particular, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\9\ which requires, among other things that FINRA's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(7) of the Act,\10\
which provides that FINRA members, or persons associated with its
members, must be appropriately disciplined for violations of any
provisions of the Act or FINRA's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that making the pilot program permanent
will provide FINRA with a mechanism to take action in certain
situations against a member or an associated person that is alleged to
have engaged, or is engaging, in conduct that violates Commission,
FINRA, or NASD rules, when such intervention is necessary in order to
prevent likely significant dissipation or conversion of assets or other
significant harm to investors before the underlying disciplinary
proceeding can be completed. At the same time, the Commission believes
that FINRA's cease and desist provisions contain sufficient procedural
protections to ensure that respondents have the opportunity for a fair
hearing and, if applicable, review thereof. When it first sought cease
and desist authority in 2003, FINRA said that it would use the
authority sparingly and has, in fact, only used its authority once for
a TCDO and once for a permanent cease and desist order.\11\ FINRA
stated in its Notice that if the proposal were adopted on a permanent
basis, it would continue to use its cease and desist authority
judiciously. The Commission expects that FINRA will continue to use
this authority in an appropriate manner. The Commission believes it is
reasonable and consistent with the Act for FINRA to adopt the cease and
desist rules permanently to enable it to stop persons from engaging in
securities transactions or conduct affecting the marketplace, in
alleged violation of established rules, which is likely to cause harm
to investors or would adversely affect the public interest if not
addressed expeditiously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice for a more detailed description of the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-035), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17349 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 71397-71398]
[DOCID:fr17de07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13035-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

December 10, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13035-000.
    c. Date filed: September 28, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Kaskaskia River Lock and Dam Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: Kaskaskia River in Randolph County, Illinois. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Kaskaskia River Lock & Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development, LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-13035-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Kaskaskia River Lock & Dam and operated in a run-
of-river mode would consist of: (1) A new 30-foot long, 30-foot wide,
30-foot high concrete powerhouse and associated switchyard; (2) a new
intake channel and tailrace channel opposite the existing lock (river
left); (3) two turbine/generator units with a combined installed
capacity of 8 megawatts; (4) a new 46,578-foot long above ground
transmission line extending from the switchyard near the powerhouse
southwest to an interconnection point with an existing transmission
line owned by Southern Illinois Power; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed Kaskaskia Lock & Dam Project would have an average annual
generation of 27 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.

    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24302 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 13, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15133

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  VOLGA-DNEPR J.S. CARGO AIRLINE
                              Date Filed:  May 7, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate one, one-way, cargo charter flight from
Cleveland, OH, to Cape Canaveral, FL, on or around May 15, 2003, using
its AN-124 aircraft to transport two Atlas V Payload Fairing, and
associated transport trailers, on behalf of Lockheed Martin.  The
applicant stated that Lockheed Martin needs urgent delivery of the
trailers in order to meet aggressive schedules for necessary
modification to the Payload Fairing; that the cargo is too large for
transportation on U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation
is not feasible because of the delicate nature and high value of the
cargo, and conditions unsuitable to maintain system integrity
compliance.

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>         DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Volga-Dnepr served its application on those U.S.
carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier indicated
that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the proposed
operations and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of the
requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).
For examples of earlier grants of authority of this type, see, i.e.,
Order 2001-5-23.

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                               Action date:  May 13,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 13, 2003, through May 17,
2003

Basis for approval:  We are granting Volga-Dnepr’s request to operate
its proposed flight from Cleveland to Cape Canaveral, during the period
May 13-17, 2003.  We found that its request met all the relevant
criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of
this type and that the grant was required in the public interest.
Specifically, we were persuaded that the need to move the cargo promptly
in order to meet urgent modification schedules, the fact that the cargo
could not be transported by surface transportation because of its
delicate nature, the potential negative impact of delivery delay; and
the unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency not
arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available that could be used to conduct the operation at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority would prevent
unreasonable hardship to the cargo and Lockheed Martin.  Finally, we
found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operation
(see, e.g., Notice of Action Taken dated August 26, 2002, in Docket
OST-96-1454).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions and to the condition that Antonov comply
with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized flight.

Action taken by:      Read C. Van de Water

                                  Assistant Secretary for Aviation

                                     and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: February 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 9539-9540]
[DOCID:fr24fe06-72]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0028; FRL-8036-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Lime Manufacturing
(Renewal), ICR Number 1167.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0063

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document
announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been
forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection.
This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2006. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This
ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its
estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2005-0028, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 2201T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, (Mail Code 2223A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0028, which is available for public viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the

Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is:
(202) 566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic public docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above.
    Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them

and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a
comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference
to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in http://www.regulations.gov.
 The entire printed comment, including the

copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although
identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as
CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not
included in the official public docket, and will not be available for
public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (Renewal).
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for lime
manufacturing plants were proposed on May 3, 1977, and promulgated on
April 26, 1984. These standards apply to each rotary lime kiln used in
the manufacture of lime, which commenced construction or modification
after May 3, 1977. This subpart does not apply to facilities used in
the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp mills.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make one-time-
only reports including notification of startup, initial performance
test, notification of any physical or operational change, and
notification of the demonstration of the continuous monitoring system
(CMS). Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.
Semiannual reports of excess emissions are also required.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part must
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the collection of such measurements, maintenance
reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or
local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated
authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 46
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and
review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owner or operator of each lime
manufacturing plant.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 41.
    Frequency of Response: Semi-annually, initially and on occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hours Burden: 3,773 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $366,056, which includes $0
annualized capital/startup costs, $61,500 annual O&M costs, and
$304,556 annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is decrease of 661 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to a change in the number of
respondents. After a thorough analysis involving industry, and by using
the most updated reports (dated December 2004) from the U.S. Department
of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey, we arrived at forty-one
as the number of sources as compared to fifty-three in the previous
ICR.
    There is a decline in the reporting and recordkeeping burden cost.
The reason for the decline is because there are no new sources expected
over the next three years and the adjustment to the number of existing
sources as compared to the previous ICR.

    Dated: February 12, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-2660 Filed 2-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 June 30, 2009

STATEMENT OF LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW REQUESTING
EPA WITHDRAW REVISIONS TO THE

DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE RULE

	The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (“Lawyers
Committee”) requests the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
withdraws the recently promulgated rule on the Definition of Solid
Waste.  The rule severely reduces RCRA oversight of hazardous wastes
that are allegedly “recycled,” and completely disregards the
overwhelming evidence that “recycling” of hazardous waste is a very
dangerous practice, which, if not stringently regulated, frequently
results in the release of extremely toxic chemicals.  EPA’s new rule
removes critical safeguards at these high-risk facilities which will
lead to the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health and
the environment from toxic waste.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President
John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services
to address racial discrimination. The principal mission of the Lawyers'
Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under
law.  For forty-six years, the Lawyers' Committee has represented
victims of discrimination in virtually all aspects of life.

In 1991, the Lawyers' Committee formed its Environmental Justice Project
to represent communities of color in environmental and civil rights
matters.  Minority and low income communities disproportionately bear
the burden of environmental pollution.  More than 5.1 million people of
color, including 2.5 million Hispanics or Latinos, 1.8 million African
Americans, 616,000 Asians/Pacific Islanders and 62,000 Native Americans
live in neighborhoods with one or more commercial hazardous waste
facilities.

Executive Order 12,898 directs all agencies to address the
disproportionate environmental impact their programs and policies may
have on minority and low-income communities.  This requirement is in
addition to the EPA’s overall responsibility to protect all
communities from environmental degradation.   Additionally, the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, require the EPA to ensure its
policies are not racially discriminatory.

President Clinton’s memorandum accompanying the Order stressed the
Administration’s efforts to “prevent those minority communities and
low-income communities from being subject to disproportionately high and
adverse environmental effects.”  Furthermore, Title VI’s prohibition
of discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal funds and
the EPA’s regulations prohibiting any program or activity receiving
EPA assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national
origin or sex demonstrate the compelling interest of the government and
the EPA to eliminate the disparate impacts of its policies and
practices.

Despite these laws and executive action, EPA’s recent history has been
to avoid addressing the burdens on environmental justice communities.
On March 1, 2004, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
issued its evaluation report entitled, “EPA Needs to Consistently
Implement the Intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice.”
 In this report, the OIG concludes, and, indeed, devotes a full chapter
to, the fact that the “EPA Has Not Fully Implemented Environmental
Justice,” and specifically finds that the EPA “has not fully
implemented Executive Order 12,898 nor consistently integrated
environmental justice into its day-to-day operations.”

In July 2005, the Government Accounting Office found the EPA continuing
its failure to address environmental justice by devoting minimal
attention to environmental justice in its development of clean air
rules.  Specifically, the GAO found (1) the initial form prepared for
senior management did not address environmental justice, (2) the lack of
guidance and training limited workgroups’ ability to identify
potential environmental justice concerns, and (3) the economic reviews
did not always provide decision makers with an environmental justice
analysis.

The EPA, under this new Administration, must not continue the total
disregard for the Executive Order by affirming a rule that allows for an
increase in hazardous waste in minority and low-income communities.
Prior to promulgating the rule, EPA declined to investigate the
disparate impact of the revision to the definition of solid waste on
low-income and minority communities, arbitrarily concluding that the
revision would have no environmental impact.  The EPA’s cursory
statement that no disparate impacts are expected and its failure to
conduct any direct analysis on how the rule will affect minority and
low-income communities already suffering under the dark cloud of
industrial pollution and lack of federal enforcement is unjustified and
undercuts the goal of the Executive Order and the overall mission of
EPA.

The EPA’s rule exempts 1.5 million tons of hazardous waste from the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (“RCRA”) protective
“cradle to grave” management system and excuses thousands of
companies from complying with rules that protect human health and the
environment.  Under the rule, unlicensed and barely supervised companies
will handle hazardous industrial wastes, some of which are highly
flammable, explosive and corrosive, that contain dangerous chemicals
known to cause cancer, neurological damage, birth defects, lupus and
immune disorders.  The threat of fire or toxic exposure is most acute
for the largely minority and low-income residents who live near the more
than 5,600 industrial facilities that are now free to generate, store,
and recycle these dangerous substances without permits or adequate
oversight.

	Given the agency’s failure to consider the environmental justice
impacts of removing vital safeguards on hazardous waste recycling, the
EPA must withdraw this rule.  People of color are disproportionately
represented in the neighborhoods surrounding hazardous waste facilities;
forming an absolute majority near most sites and often a two-thirds
majority where facilities are clustered together.  The EPA’s refusal
to evaluate how this rule would impact the low-income communities and
people of color who already face disproportionate exposure to industrial
toxins is unconscionable.  The Agency’s negligent assertion that
removing government oversight of hazardous waste recyclers will have no
environmental impact and thus no disproportionate impact on any
particular community contradicts the clear evidence already compiled by
the Agency.

While we are asking the EPA to withdraw this rule in its entirety,
should the EPA fail to repeal the rule, the Lawyers’ Committee echoes
the recommendations of other environmental and community organizations
in demanding the Agency correct some of the rule’s most egregious
provisions, by doing the following:

The EPA Must Set Enforceable Storage and Labeling Requirements for
Hazardous Materials and Prevent the Storage of Hazardous Materials in
Unregulated Pits, Ditches, Piles and Ponds.

Companies that Do Not Comply with the Rule’s Notification Requirements
Must Not Be Eligible for the Rule’s Exemption.

The EPA Must Create a Stringent Definition of Legitimate Recycling That
Makes Environmental and Public Health Protection Mandatory.

The EPA Must Withdraw the Exclusion for Off-Site Handling and Recycling.

The Lawyers’ Committee respectfully requests that the EPA withdraw
this rule, which significantly weakens the public’s protection from
millions of tons of hazardous waste and further threatens the health and
safety of America’s most vulnerable communities.  It is the obligation
of EPA to seriously consider how this rule endangers the public and our
environment and take the steps necessary to ensure that hazardous waste,
if recycled, is done so safely, under clear and enforceable rules of
law, and to ensure that no community is disproportionately burdened or
endangered.

 See Robert D. Bullard et al., Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty
1986-2007, Executive Summary (Feb. 2007), available at
http://epa.gov/osw/hazard/dsw/abr-rule/env-prob.pdf.

 Presidential Memorandum Accompanying Executive Order 12,898 (February
11, 1994).

 Moreover, on July 21, 2005, 76 congressional members signed a letter to
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson emphasizing the importance and
necessity of the EPA to address the disproportionate environmental
burdens on racial minorities and low-income communities.

 Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste, 73 Fed. Reg. 64668,
64756–57 (Oct. 30, 2008).

 See Robert D. Bullard et al., Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty
1986-2007, Executive Summary (Feb. 2007), available at
http://epa.gov/osw/hazard/dsw/abr-rule/env-prob.pdf.

 See Revisions to the Final Definition of Solid Waste; Final Rule, 73
Fed. Reg. 64668, 64756-57 (EPA Oct. 30, 2008).

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19570-19572]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0157]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection: Training Certification for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators

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 its
review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval
to revise an ICR titled ``Training Certification for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,'' which will now be used to
register providers of entry-level driver training and to provide State
Drivers' Licensing Agencies with information on individuals who have
completed said training. If approved, this revision will allow FMCSA to
collect information on registered training providers and entry-level
driver training certification information until 2022.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 7, 2020. OMB must
receive your comments by this date in order to act on the ICR.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Jones, Commercial Driver's
License Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE,

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0028.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.

IC-1 (Training Certification for Entry-Level Drivers Under Subpart E)

    Respondents: Entry-level Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) operators.
    Estimated Number of Respondents (average per year): 235,824.
    Estimated Time per Response (average): 10 minutes.
    Expiration Date: April 30, 2020.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion. Entry-level interstate CDL
holders receive a certificate when they successfully complete mandatory
training, and must present a copy of it to their employer in order to
be qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The employer keeps a copy of the training certificate in the
driver qualification file.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden for IC-1: 39,304 hours.

IC-2 (Training Provider Registration)

    Respondents: Training providers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents (average per year): 6,837.
    Estimated Time per Response (average): 1.84 hours.
    Expiration Date: April 30, 2020.
    Frequency of Response: All training providers will need to
initially register once. Additionally, all registered training
providers must update their information at least biennially. They are
also required to provide an update if any key information (company
name, address, phone number, types of training offered, etc.) changes
prior to their biennial update.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden for IC-2: 15,026 hours.

IC-3 (Driver Training Certification)

    Respondents: Training providers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents (average per year): 6,837.
    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.
    Expiration Date: April 30, 2020.
    Frequency of Response: After an individual driver-trainee completes
training administered by a training provider listed on the Training
Provider Registry (TPR), that training provider must submit training
certification information regarding the driver-trainee to the TPR.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden for IC-3: 12,946 hours.
    Estimated Total Burden Under this ICR: 67,276 hours.

Background

    Section 4007(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, December 18, 1991)
directed the Federal Highway Administration (predecessor Agency to
FMCSA) to ``. . . commence a rulemaking proceeding on the need to
require training of all entry level drivers of commercial motor
vehicles.'' FMCSA subsequently published the final rule titled
``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators'' (69 FR 29384) on May 21, 2004, with an effective
date of July 20, 2004, implementing Section 4007(a)(2) of ISTEA. The
rule mandated training for interstate CMV drivers on four topics:
Driver qualifications, hours-of-service of drivers, driver wellness,
and whistle-blower protection. Under Subpart E of the existing Entry
Level Driver Training (ELDT) requirements of 49 CFR part 380, employers
are prohibited from allowing an entry-level driver to operate a CMV
without ensuring that the driver has received this ELDT as specified
under 49 CFR 380.503. These entry-level interstate CDL drivers receive
a certificate when they successfully complete the mandatory training,
and must present a copy of it to their employer to be qualified to
drive a CMV in interstate commerce. The employer keeps a copy of the
training certificate in the driver qualification file. During an
investigation, the certificate serves as proof that the CDL driver
completed the required training. The currently approved collection of
information with OMB Control Number 2126-0028 titled ``Training
Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators''
which was most recently approved on April 19, 2017, and which has an
expiration date of April 30, 2020, reflects these existing ELDT
requirements under Subpart E of 49 CFR part 380.
    On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed legislation titled the
``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21) (Pub. L.
112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 791). Section 32304 of MAP-21 directed FMCSA to
develop and establish minimum driver training standards for applicants
for a CDL and/or certain CDL endorsements. FMCSA subsequently published
the final rule titled ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators'' (81 FR 88732) (ELDT final rule) on
December 8, 2016, with a compliance date of February 7, 2020,
implementing section 32304 of MAP-21. That final rule eliminated the
existing driver training regulations under subpart E of part 380,
established new minimum training standards for entry-level drivers, and
in doing so established two separate information collection actions:
(1) Training providers must submit information to FMCSA to ensure that
they meet the new training provider eligibility requirements and may
therefore be listed on a new TPR; and (2) after an individual driver-
trainee completes training administered by a training provider listed
on the TPR, that training provider must submit training certification
information regarding the driver-trainee to the TPR. However, because
the compliance dates for that final rule were set as three years after
its publication, FMCSA did not, at that time, revise the collection of
information to reflect these two new provisions, opting to provide an
update at the time of the next renewal for the collection.
Subsequently, on March 6, 2019, FMSCA published a separate final rule
titled ``Commercial Driver's License Upgrade from Class B to Class A''
(84 FR 8029), that amended the ELDT regulations that were published on
December 8, 2016, by adopting a new Class A CDL theory instruction
upgrade curriculum to reduce the training time and costs incurred by
Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL. This March 6, 2019,
final rule does not substantively affect the paperwork collection
burden associated with the ELDT regulations, therefore no action was
taken to update the collection of information at that time.
    On February 4, 2020, the Agency published an interim final rule
titled ``Extension of Compliance Date for Entry-Level Driver Training''
(85 FR 6088) that further amends the ELDT regulations that were
published on December 8, 2016, by extending the compliance date for the
rule from February 7, 2020, to February 7, 2022. This compliance date
extension will provide FMCSA additional time to complete development of
the TPR, and provides State Driver Licensing Agencies with time to
modify their information technology systems and procedures, as
necessary, to accommodate their receipt of driver-specific ELDT data
from the TPR. In a July 18, 2019, proposed rule titled ``Partial
Extension of Compliance Date for Entry-Level Driver Training'' (84 FR
34324), FMCSA had proposed extending the compliance date from February
7, 2020, to February 7, 2022, only for the

requirement for training providers to submit training certification
information to the TPR for each individual driver-trainee that
completes training. The compliance date for the ``Training Provider
Registration'' information collection activities was proposed to have
remained February 7, 2020. Under the February 4, 2020, interim final
rule, FMCSA is now delaying the entire ELDT final rule, as opposed to a
partial delay as originally proposed, due to delays in implementation
of the TPR that were not foreseen when the proposed rule was published.
    Under this revision, the existing entry-level driver training
requirements and information collection activities under 49 CFR 380
Subpart E that will continue to be in force for the first two years,
2020 and 2021, of the three-year period covered by this ICR are treated
as a separate information collection (IC), IC-1. The ``Training
Provider Registration'' information collection activities, and the
``Driver Training Certification Information'' information collection
activities, that go into effect as of February 7, 2022, under the new
ELDT requirements are also treated as separate information collections,
IC-2 and IC-3, respectively.
    On July 3, 2019, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal Register
allowing for a 60-day comment period on this ICR. The Agency received
one comment to that notice. The Commercial Vehicle Training Association
(CVTA) stated their support for OMB to approve the new collections
under what are now IC-2 (Training Provider Registration) and IC-3
(Driver Training Certification Information). CVTA also sought
clarification as to why there were separate ICs presented in the 60-day
notice for the ``Training Provider Registration'' function and the
``Driver Training Certification Information'' function. The Agency
clarifies that it presented those two activities as separate ICs in
order to improve the clarity and transparency of the analysis. Guidance
from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB
regarding the preparation of ICRs and Supporting Statements recommends
that each form or collection instrument have a separate IC within a
given ICR, in order to provide a more meaningful and easily understood
estimate of the burden associated with each form or collection. OIRA
also recommends that agencies present separate ICs within an ICR if the
Agency believes that doing so would be informative.

Public Comments Invited

    FMCSA requests that you 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.
    The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request
for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.

Kenneth Riddle,
Acting Associate Administrator for Registration and Research.
[FR Doc. 2020-07221 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43736-43737]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13134-000]

Thousand Springs Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 21, 2008.
    On February 25, 2008, Thousand Springs Hydro, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Thousand Springs Pump Storage
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Thousand Springs Creek, in Elko
County, Nevada.
    The proposed pumped storage project would consist of: (1) An
enlargement of the existing gravity dam to 80 feet in height, with a
crest length of 650 feet, and a hydraulic head of 60 feet, and an upper
gravity dam 220 feet in height, with a crest length of 1,700 feet and a
hydraulic head of 200 feet, (2) a proposed upper reservoir having a
surface area of 350 acres, with a storage capacity of 11,600 acre-feet
and a normal water surface elevation of 5,680 feet mean sea level
(msl), (3) a proposed lower reservoir having a surface area of 660
acres, with storage capacity of 10,500 acre-feet and normal water
surface elevation of 5,200 feet msl, (4) a 360-inch-diameter steel
penstock approximately 7,130 feet long, (5) a proposed powerhouse
containing six generating units having a total installed capacity of
470 megawatts, (6) a switchyard, (7) a 115 kV transmission line
approximately 21.7 miles in length, and (8) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would generate approximately 1,370 gigawatt hours
annually, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel K. Dygert, COO, Carrus Land Systems,
LLC, 1047 S. 100 W., Ste. 210, Logan, UT 84321,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Mr.
Brent L. Smith, COO, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442,
(208) 745-0834.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13134) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17149 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P