MEMORANDUM

To:		OSWRO Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360)
From:		Paula Hirtz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Date:		November 19, 2014
Subject:	Updated Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations RTR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0	INTRODUCTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.  E.O. 12898 informed the development and implementation of the EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ) program and EJ policies. Consistent with the E.O. and the Presidential Memorandum that accompanies the E.O., the agency's EJ policies promote environmental protection by focusing attention and agency efforts on addressing the types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low-income and indigenous populations. E.O. 12898 and the agency's EJ policies do not mandate particular outcomes for an action, but they demand that decisions involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. Where feasible, actions should prevent or address and mitigate EJ concerns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the decision-making process. Certain groups may not have participated in the decision-making process historically because of economic (e.g., income), social (e.g., language barriers, education levels, distrust of government) and structural reasons. A critical concern is whether, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities taking place in their community, as well as the requirements, conditions and parameters by which such regulated activities must operate (e.g., permit conditions).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA aims to notify and engage the public in a variety of ways. Each rule is reviewed to identify appropriate mechanisms to promote meaningful involvement, which may include notices on the EJAir website, community call discussions, fact sheets, community meetings and/or webinars. Additionally, when reliable source location data is available, the EPA strives to provide a screening report of near source populations. It is important to note that while the EPA provides near-source data, whether or not a facility-level analysis is appropriate depends on the Clean Air Act's (CAA) authority for the subject rule. For example, CAA sections 112 (d) and 112(f), which address hazardous air pollutants, require the EPA to establish emission standards that apply to all sources in specified categories or subcategories. In the case of the CAA 112(f), the EPA sets standards to ensure the public is protected with an ample margin of safety based on the maximum exposed individual risk (MIR) or the facility in the source category that poses the highest risks to the public, and must consider specific statutory factors, including costs, energy and safety.

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS

The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income or indigenous populations.

However, the agency has reviewed the areas surrounding existing facilities to determine if there is an overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations near the sources such that they may currently face disproportionate risks from pollutants.

To gain a better understanding of the source category and near‐source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles for this rulemaking (Table 1). This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low‐income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by hazardous air emissions due to the proximity of their homes to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this rule.

The analysis of demographic data used proximity-to-a-source as a surrogate for exposure to identify those populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to emissions from these sources. The demographic data for this analysis were extracted from the 2010 census data, which were provided to the EPA by the United States Census Bureau. Distributions by race were based on demographic information at the census block level, and all other demographic groups were based on the extrapolation of census block group level data to the census block level. The socio-demographic parameters used in the analysis included the following categories: Racial (White, African American, Native American, Other or Multiracial, and All Other Races); Ethnicity (Hispanic); and Other (number of people below the poverty line, number of people with ages between 0 and 18, number of people greater than or equal to 65, number of people over age 25 without a high school diploma).

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected sources, the EPA focused on those census blocks within 3 miles of affected sources, determined the demographic composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of these census blocks, and compared them to the corresponding compositions nationally. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 km) is consistent with other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential sources however, not necessarily associated with the distance health risks are seen.

Since the proposed rulemaking, the EPA received information from an additional four facilities in the source category and updated the agency's 2010 census data. Results from these changes are reflected in Table 1.
         Table 1. Summary of Demographic Analysis for OSWRO facilities


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 241 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68464-68465]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of
Authority

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center of Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER) has modified its structure. This new
organizational structure was approved

by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on September 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Echegoyen, Acting Director,
Office of Management/Executive Officer, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 51, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-
796-3300.

I. Summary

    Part D, Chapter D-B, (Food and Drug Administration), the Statement
of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the
Department of Health and Human Services (35 FR 3685, February 25, 1970;
60 FR 56606, November 9, 1995; 64 FR 36361, July 6, 1999; 72 FR 50112,
August 30, 2007; 74 FR 41713, August 18, 2009; and 76 FR 45270, July
28, 2011) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Center of
Drug Evaluation and Research.
    This reorganization consists of the following Offices: Office of
New Drugs (OND), Office of Translational Science (OTS), and Office of
Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) within the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and revises their functional statements. The proposed
organizational changes align with the ReImagine HHS strategic shift
moving to the 21st century: Maximizing Talent, Integrated Assessments,
Benefit Risk Monitoring, and Leveraging the Power of Data. CDER will
meet the definition of Maximizing Talent by focusing on growing our
scientific leadership. This will result in clearly designed pathways to
regulatory approval and enhanced emphasis on multidisciplinary teams.
The proposed reorganization will integrate assessments to critically,
collaboratively, and consistently assess whether information in
submissions meets statutory and regulatory requirements. OND, OPQ, and
OTS will establish Benefit-Risk Monitoring to unify the post-market
safety surveillance framework leading to operational excellence by
aligning the therapeutic focus. Each of these offices will incorporate
Leveraging the Power of Data to provide access to analytical tools and
systems to help the reviewers evaluate and interpret submitted data,
thereby improving and streamlining the processes which will impact the
critical analyses leading to efficiencies and effectiveness in CDER's
scientific regulatory review.
    Under Part D, FDA, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER) has been restructured as follows:
    Standard Administrative Codes (SAC). ORGANIZATION--CDER is headed
by the Director and includes the following organizational units:

Office of Regulatory Policy (SAC)
Office of Management (SAC)
Office of Communications (SAC)
Office of Compliance (SAC)
Office of Manufacturing Quality (SAC)
Office of Unapproved Drugs and Labeling Compliance (SAC)
Office of Scientific Investigations (SAC)
Office of Program and Regulatory Operations (SAC)
Office of Medical Policy (SAC)
Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (SAC)
Office of Medical Policy Initiatives (SAC)
Office of Translational Sciences (SAC)
Office of Biostatistics (SAC)
Office of Clinical Pharmacology (SAC)
Office of Computational Science (SAC)
Office of Study Integrity and Surveillance (SAC)
Office of Administrative Operations (SAC)
Office of Executive Programs (SAC)
Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (SAC)
Office of Medication Error Prevention and Risk Management (SAC)
Office of Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology (SAC)
Office of New Drugs (SAC)
Office of Administrative Operations (SAC)
Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology & Nephrology (SAC)
Office of Drug Evaluation Science (SAC)
Office of Immunology & Inflammation (SAC)
Office of Infectious Diseases (SAC)
Office of Neuroscience (SAC)
Office of New Drug Policy (SAC)
Office of Nonprescription Drugs (SAC)
Office of Oncologic Diseases (SAC)
Office of Program Operations (SAC)
Office of Rare Diseases, Pediatrics, Urology & Reproductive Medicine
(SAC)
Office of Regulatory Operations (SAC)
Office of Specialty Medicine (SAC)
Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars (SAC)
Office of Strategic Programs (SAC)
Office of Program and Strategic Analysis (SAC)
Office of Business Informatics (SAC)
Office of Generic Drugs (SAC)
Office of Research Standards (SAC)
Office of Bioequivalence (SAC)
Office of Generic Drug Policy (SAC)
Office of Regulatory Operations (SAC)
Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (SAC)
Office of Administrative Operations (SAC)
Office of Biotechnology Products (SAC)
Office of Lifecycle Drug Products (SAC)
Office of New Drug Products (SAC)
Office of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Assessment (SAC)
Office of Policy for Pharmaceutical Quality (SAC)
Office of Program and Regulatory Operations (SAC)
Office of Quality Surveillance (SAC)
Office of Testing and Research (SAC)

II. Delegations of Authority

    Pending further delegation, directives, or orders by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, all delegations and redelegations of
authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational
components will continue in them or their successors pending further
redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.

III. Electronic Access

    This reorganization is reflected in FDA's Staff Manual Guide (SMG).
Persons interested in seeing the complete SMG can find it on FDA's
website at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/StaffManualGuides/default.htm.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3101.

Alex M. Azar, II,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26952 Filed 12-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67783-67785]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24514]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0688; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00409-T;
Amendment 39-22206; AD 2022-21-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type
Certificate Previously Held by 328 Support Services GmbH; AvCraft
Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH)
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by 328 Support
Services GmbH; AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier
Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328-100 and -300 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a safety analysis that lithium batteries installed in the personal
electronic devices (PED) are a potential risk of an in-flight fire in
the flight deck stowage boxes. This AD requires installing a placard
and stowing the fire gloves on the left-hand (LH) flap door of the
flight deck step; and installing the placards on the LH and right-hand
(RH) flight deck stowage boxes. This AD also requires revising the
operator's existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include emergency
procedures, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 15, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 15,
2022.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0688; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this IBR material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0688.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Deutsche Aircraft
GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by 328 Support Services GmbH;
AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH)
Model 328-100 and -300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 21, 2022 (87 FR 36775). The NPRM was prompted by AD
2022-0050, dated March 22, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union (referred to after
this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that lithium batteries installed in
the PED are a potential risk of an in-flight fire in the flight deck
stowage boxes. EASA issued Continuing Airworthiness Review Item (CARI)
25-09, requesting type certificate holders to investigate the potential
risk of in-flight fire of lithium batteries installed in PED. The
investigation was conducted on the effect of a PED fire on a critical
system component, and the development of smoke in the flight deck.
Deutsche Aircraft GmbH Model 328-100 and -300 airplanes have the
stowages for PED located in the proximity of oxygen lines, oxygen mask
boxes, and other critical system components in the flight deck. The
safety analysis was performed at all possible locations, and concluded
that in case of a PED fire, the panels of the side console forward
stowage may not be able to withstand the released heat, and the oxygen
supply line can be damaged. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in an oxygen fed fire in the flight deck, possibly resulting in
an uncontrolled fire.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing a placard and
stowing the fire gloves on the LH flap door of the flight deck step;
and installing the placards on the LH and RH flight deck stowage boxes.
The NPRM also proposed to require revising the operator's existing AFM
to include emergency procedures, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0050. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0688.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product.
Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0050 specifies procedures for installing a ``FIRE
GLOVES'' pictogram placard and stowing the fire gloves on the LH flap
door of the flight deck step; and installing the ``NO PED STOWAGE''
placards on the LH and RH flight deck stowage boxes. EASA AD 2022-0050
also specifies revising the operator's existing AFM to include
emergency procedures to address smoke including PED smoke removal.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................            $350             $520          $18,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-21-07 Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held
by 328 Support Services GmbH; AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild
Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH): Amendment 39-22206; Docket
No. FAA-2022-0688; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00409-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 15,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type Certificate
Previously Held by 328 Support Services GmbH; AvCraft Aerospace
GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328-100
and 328-300 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and
markings and 25, Equipment/furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a safety analysis that lithium batteries
installed in personal electronic devices (PED) are a potential risk
of an in-flight fire in the flight deck stowage boxes. The PED fire
could spread out of the flight deck stowage boxes to the oxygen
supply lines and other critical system components. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the potential risk of in-flight fire of
lithium batteries installed in PED, which could result in an oxygen
fed fire in the flight deck, possibly resulting in an uncontrolled
fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0050, dated March 22, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0050).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0050

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0050 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0050 specifies to
``inform all flight crews, and, thereafter, operate the aeroplane
accordingly,'' this AD does not require those actions as those
actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations
(see 14 CFR 121.137, 91.505, and 91.9).
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0050 specifies to amend
or use the airplane flight manual (AFM), replace the text ``amend
the applicable AFM by incorporating the AFM emergency procedure or
use the AFM'' with ``amend the applicable AFM by incorporating the
information specified in the AFM emergency procedure.''
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0050 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirements

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0050
specifies reporting, this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Deutsche
Aircraft GmbH's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0050,
dated March 22, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0050, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 3, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-24514 Filed 11-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


COMMENTS RECEIVED ON 6/ 2/ 03 PROPOSED RULE THAT FAVOR AN RFP BASELINE YEAR OF 2004 American Petroleum Institute: We are convinced that EPA has misread the statute as requiring that the six year time period for achieving a 15 percent reduction in Moderate areas or for achieving an 18 percent reduction in Serious areas starts with the baseline year. Instead, we believe that the statute requires that the six year time period begins with the date of designation, rather than the date of the most recent completed VOC inventory. The starting point for the six year period obviously affects the ending point, and under EPA's interpretation there would not be a meaningful period of time available to accomplish the reductions the reductions required in Serious areas. Under EPA's interpretation, the 18% reduction for Serious areas would have to be achieved by 2008, which is 6 years after the baseyear. Even with EPA's supposed acceleration of the due date for the RFP SIP to 2 years after designation, instead of the 3 years provided for in section 182( b)( 1)( A) and the 4 years provided for in section 182( c)( 2), the 2 years that would remain until 2008 would be totally inadequate to achieve either the 15% reduction in VOC's ( if EPA decides that Option 2 is not available, or for areas that have not previously achieved the 15% reduction) or the 18% reduction in VOC's and/ or NOx.

Dominion Energy: Dominion urges EPA to use the designation year as the baseline year from which to determine ROP emissions reduction milestones in lieu of the 2002 baseline currently proposed in order for the initial 6 year ROP milestone to coincide with the attainment deadline for a moderate nonattainment area ( and thereby avoid the 18 month gap between the initial ROP requirement and the attainment deadline for which EPA expressed concern in its initial proposal.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: However, instead of referencing the ROP submissions dates to the designation date, EPA uses the baseline year as the reference point. EPA's rationale for doing this is based on the fact that the ROP submissions under the CAA Amendments of 1990 were to show the relevant reductions in emissions at set periods after the 1990 baseline inventory year. This is an incorrect reference point. The baseline inventory year is irrelevant for this purpose. The year of designation is relevant. The point EPA is missing is that the attainment and ROP submissions dates established in Subpart 2 are to allow States a sufficient amount of time to achieve the mandated goals. In the following passage, EPA recognizes that its use of the baseline inventory year as the ROP reference point shortchanges the States on the ROP development periods established under Subpart 2: section 182( b)( 1) requires that moderate and higher classified areas submit their 15 percent ROP plans within 3 years after 1990. For the attainment dates under the 8 hour ozone standard, we propose interpreting the CAA's language referring to the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments to mean the date of designations for the 8 hour standard. If we were to require the ROP plans to be submitted within 3 years after their nonattainment designation date ( i. e,, in 2007 if we designate in 2004). The plans would have to be implemented within 1 year after submission to ensure the 15 percent emissions reductions are achieved by the end of the relevant 6 year period ( i. e., December 2008). We believe this would likely not be sufficient time to ensure that the reductions would occur by the required deadline. Therefore, we propose that the ROP SIP be submitted within 2 years after nonattainment designation  by 2006. This would provide 2 years for the State to develop and submit its ROP plan, and another 2 years for the control measures to be implemented.

N. C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources: Another issue with the ROP timeline is the proposal to use 2002 as the baseline, and have the first six years of the ROP plan go through 2008. This timeline is inconsistent with the approach taken by the CAAA of 1990 when the ROP six year window corresponded with the sixyear attainment timeline for moderate areas. By shifting the timeline to 2004, it will require an additional emission inventory, but it will allow States to consider their attainment demonstration in developing their ROP plans, and it will allow the full three years contemplated by the CAA for the submittal of the first ROP plan.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16613-16616]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0160]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters of the Sabine River, extending the entire
width of the river, adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange,
TX. This action is necessary to protect persons and vessels from
hazards associated with a high-speed Jet Ski race competition in
Orange, TX. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port
Arthur or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. on April 27, 2019 through 6
p.m. on April 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0160 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by
April 27, 2019 and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this
rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone
until after the dates of the high-speed races and compromise public
safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest
because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from
the potential

hazards during a high-speed Jet Ski race on a navigable waterway.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that the
potential hazards associated with high-speed Jet Ski races are a safety
concern for persons and vessels operating on the Sabine River. Possible
hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact
among participant vessels and spectators or mariners traversing through
the safety zone. This rule is needed to protect all waterway users,
including event participants and spectators, before, during, and after
the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 10 a.m. through
6 p.m. each day from April 27, 2019 through April 28, 2019. The safety
zone covers all navigable waters of the Sabine River, extending the
entire width of the river, adjacent to the public boat ramp located in
Orange, TX bounded by the Navy Pier One between latitude 30[deg]05'50''
N and latitude 30[deg]05'33'' N. The duration of the safety zone is
intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and
vessels, in the navigable waters of the Sabine River during high-speed
Jet Ski races and will include breaks and opportunity for vessels to
transit through the regulated area.
    No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They
may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. A designated representative may be a Patrol
Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or
Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16
VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''. The ``official patrol
vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement
and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a
designated representative to patrol the zone. All persons and vessels
not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol
vessels are considered spectators.
    Spectator vessels desiring to transit the zone may do so only with
prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so
directed by that officer must be operated at a minimum safe navigation
speed in a manner that will not endanger any other vessels. No
spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through
transit of official patrol vessels in the zone during the effective
dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through the COTP or a
designated representative. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the
zone, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the
zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of
the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to
the establishment of the zone and remain moored through the duration of
the event.
    The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the
movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an
official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and
comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in
expulsion from the zone, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation
of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of
life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will
terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the
event.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone encompasses
a less than half-mile stretch of the Sabine River for eight hours on
each of two days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice
to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, daily
enforcement periods will include breaks that will provide an
opportunity for vessels to transit through the regulated area, and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on vessel owners or operators.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone lasting 8 hours on each of two days that will prohibit
entry on less than a one-half mile stretch of the Sabine River. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0160 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0160   Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, Texas.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Sabine River, extending the entire width of the river,
adjacent to the public boat ramp located in Orange, TX bounded by the
Navy Pier One between latitude 30[deg]05'50'' N and latitude
30[deg]05'33'' N.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 10 a.m. on
April 27, 2019 through 6 p.m. on April 28, 2019.
    (c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 10 a.m.
through 6 p.m. daily. Breaks in the racing will occur during the
enforcement periods, which will allow for vessels to pass through the
safety zone. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur
(COTP) or a designated representative will provide notice of breaks as
appropriate per paragraph (e) of this section.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. They may
be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at
409-719-5070. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard
Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16
VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by
the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the regulated area.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so
directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation
speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated
area or any other vessels.
    (4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the
through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for
entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
    (5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but
may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator
vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated
area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of
the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to
the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the
duration of the event.
    (6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control
the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an
immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so
may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    (7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event
or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for
the protection of life or property.
    (8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate
enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the
event.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of

enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: April 10, 2019.
Jacqueline Twomey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port
Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2019-08058 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63228-63229]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63066; File No. SR-OCC-2010-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Allow for Adjustments to the
Settlement Price of Exchange-Designated Security Futures for All Cash
Dividends or Distributions Paid by the Issuer of the Underlying
Security

October 8, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On August 19, 2010, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2010-13 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ On August 25, 2010, OCC
amended the proposed rule change. Notice of the proposal was published
in the Federal Register on September 7, 2010.\2\ The Commission
received no comment letters in response to the proposed rule change.
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62801 (August 31, 2010),
75 FR 54410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The primary purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's
By-Laws to allow OCC to make adjustments to the settlement price of
exchange-designated security futures for all cash dividends or
distributions paid by the issuer of the underlying security. Under its
current rules, OCC makes such adjustments only for ``non-ordinary''
dividends. However, OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'') has informed OCC
that it believes there is a demand for security futures that would be
adjusted in response to all cash dividends or distributions.
Accordingly, OCC is amending Section 3 of Article XII of its By-Laws to
permit exchanges to designate certain security futures that will be
adjusted for ordinary as well as ``non-ordinary'' cash dividends and
distributions. Exchanges can continue to trade security futures that
will be adjusted only in the event of a ``non-ordinary'' dividend or
distribution.
    For security futures subject to adjustment for all cash dividends
or distributions, it will be the exchange's responsibility to inform
OCC of the issuance of a cash dividend or

distribution and of the appropriate adjustment amount. Provided that
such information (including any corrections thereto) is reported to OCC
before an OCC-designated cut-off time prior to the ex-date, OCC will
make the appropriate adjustment to the settlement price of the security
futures contract. Such adjustments will be effective before the opening
of business on the ex-date.\3\ If the exchange fails to report dividend
or distribution information to OCC on a timely basis or reports
incorrect dividend or distribution information to OCC, then the
exchange will be able to report such information or corrected
information to OCC on the ex-date, and OCC will effect the adjustment
as soon as practicable thereafter.\4\ In the event the exchange already
opened trading in the security futures contracts affected thereby, the
exchange will provide OCC with direction on whether such trades should
be cleared or disregarded as provided for in Article VI, Section 7 of
OCC's By-Laws. Pursuant thereto, disregarded transactions will be
deemed null and void and given no effect. These procedures are intended
not only to preserve OCC's ability to initiate and conduct nightly
processing on a timely basis but also to provide the exchange with the
opportunity to report to OCC dividend or distribution information that
was not available to it before OCC's processing cut-offs or to correct
erroneously reported information so that there is an appropriate
adjustment to the settlement price for the affected contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The standard method for adjusting futures contracts in
response to cash distributions is to decrease the prior day's
settlement price by the amount of the dividend. This adjustment is
effective at the opening of business on the ex-distribution date and
parallels the adjustment made to the price of the underlying stock
by the securities exchanges on the ex-distribution date. It is
intended to ensure that no futures mark-to-the-market attributable
to the adjustment made to the stock price for the dividend will
occur.
    \4\ OCC also proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .10 to
Article XII, Section 3 to provide that officially reported
settlement prices will not be adjusted (other than as provided for
in the By-Laws and Rules) except in extraordinary circumstances. The
Interpretation further provides that in no event will a completed
settlement be adjusted due to errors discovered thereafter. This
latter provision is intended to preserve the finality of money
settlements should it later be determined that an officially
reported settlement price was erroneous. The new Interpretation is
based on existing provisions of OCC's By-Laws. See, e.g., Article
XIV, Section 6, Interpretation and Policy .01; Article XVI, Section
4, Interpretation and Policy .01; and Article XVII, Section 4,
Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with OneChicago's proposal, OneChicago and OCC also
have agreed to amend the Security Futures Agreement for Clearing and
Settlement Services, dated April 1, 2002, (``Clearing Agreement'') by
entering into Amendment No. 1 thereto.\5\ Amendment No. 1 would amend
Section 5 of the Clearing Agreement to permit OneChicago to designate
those security futures contracts for which adjustments will be made in
response to all cash dividends or distributions of the underlying
securities and to set forth OneChicago's obligation to furnish OCC with
notice of all relevant information regarding such dividends or
distributions so that OCC can adjust the settlement price of the
affected security future as described above. Amended Section 5 further
extends the current indemnification provided by OneChicago to OCC to
cover losses resulting from OCC's adjustment of the settlement prices
of security futures in accordance with dividend or distribution
information supplied by OneChicago or OCC's failing to adjust in the
event OneChicago did not supply OCC with information regarding such an
adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Amendment No. 1 will be executed after the effectiveness of
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of security transactions and generally to
protect investors and the public interest.\6\ The Commission believes
that OCC's rule change is consistent with this Section because the rule
change should better enable OCC to promptly and accurately clear and
settle security futures contracts for which an exchange has designated
that the settlement prices will be adjusted to reflect the issuance of
all cash dividends or distributions on the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder. In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2010-13) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25864 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59231-59233]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23635]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67896; File No. SR-OCC-2012-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Margining of
Segregated Futures Customer Accounts on a Gross Basis

September 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 14, 2012, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would allow OCC to become compliant with
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') Rule 39.13(g)(8)(i)
which requires the margining of segregated futures customer accounts on
a gross basis.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to provide for the
margining of OCC segregated futures customer accounts on a gross basis,
as required by CFTC Rule 39.13(g)(8)(i).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 39.13(g)(8)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CFTC's Customer Gross Margin Rule
    On October 18, 2011, the CFTC issued final regulations implementing
many of the new statutory core principles for CFTC-registered
derivatives clearing organizations (``DCOs'') enacted under the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank
Act''). As a registered DCO (as well as a registered securities
clearing agency), OCC has previously implemented rule changes designed
to bring OCC into compliance with CFTC rules applicable to DCOs that
went into effect on January 9, 2012 \5\ and May 7, 2012.\6\ OCC
believes it is necessary to amend its Rules in order to ensure
compliance with the gross margin rule, which requires a DCO to
``collect initial margin on a gross basis for each clearing member's
customer account(s) equal to the sum of the initial margin amounts that
would be required by the derivatives clearing organization for each
individual customer within that account if each individual customer
were a clearing member.'' \7\ The gross margin rule goes into effect on
November 8, 2012, however, OCC intends to begin complying with the
gross margin rule on November 5, 2012 as described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-OCC-2011-18.
    \6\ See SR-OCC-2012-06.
    \7\ Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions and
Core Principles, 76 FR 69334, 69439 (November 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCC's System for Calculating Margin
    OCC currently calculates margin requirements for each clearing
member's segregated futures customer account held at OCC on a net basis
by applying OCC's System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical
Simulations (``STANS''). STANS calculates margin with respect to each
account of a clearing member, including each clearing member's futures
customer account(s), on a net basis. STANS includes both a net asset
value (``NAV'') component and a risk component. The NAV component marks
all positions to market and nets long and short positions to determine
the NAV of each clearing member's portfolio of customer positions. The
NAV component represents the cost to liquidate the portfolio at current
prices by selling the net long positions and buying in the net short
positions. The risk component is estimated by means of an expected
shortfall risk measure obtained from ``Monte Carlo'' simulations
designed to measure the additional asset value required in any
portfolio to eliminate an unacceptable level of risk that the portfolio
would liquidate to a deficit.
    OCC presently lacks sufficient information about individual
customer positions to calculate margin at the level of each individual
customer. However, OCC has been coordinating with other DCOs to
establish an industry-wide mechanism for complying with the customer
gross margin rule. Pursuant to this new system, each DCO's clearing
members will submit data files to the DCO identifying positions by
numerical customer identifiers.\8\ OCC will use this information to
calculate margins, using STANS, for each customer identifier of a
clearing member and to aggregate those margin calculations to determine
the total futures customer margin requirement for the clearing member's
segregated futures customer account(s) held at OCC.\9\ OCC will then
compare

the aggregate positions reported by each clearing member with its own
records and make any needed adjustments to the margin calculation to
ensure all positions on OCC's books are properly margined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The position data provided to OCC by clearing members will
not include (a) information with respect to the allocation of margin
assets to particular customers, nor (b) information with respect to
settlement obligations arising from the exercise, assignment or
maturity of cleared contracts. For this reason, OCC will treat all
margin assets and settlement obligations for each account to which
the gross margin rule applies as being in sub-accounts of the
Clearing Member. OCC will calculate margin, using STANS, separately
for each sub-account and will aggregate the calculated margin
requirements at the level of the clearing member's segregated
futures customer account to which the sub-accounts relate.
    \9\ OCC currently carries the following account types that are
segregated pursuant to Section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act:
Segregated Futures Accounts, Segregated Futures Professional
Accounts, non-Proprietary X-M accounts, and internal non-proprietary
cross-margining accounts. All such accounts would be margined on a
gross basis under the proposed amendments to Rule 601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed By-Law and Rule Changes
    The proposed changes to OCC's Rules provide for the calculation of
margin for segregated futures customer accounts on a gross basis and
mandate submission of the clearing member data files necessary to allow
OCC to calculate margin at the level of each futures customer. In the
event that the data included in these data files is incomplete (for
example, if OCC shows positions held in a clearing member's segregated
futures accounts, but those positions are not reflected in the data
file), OCC will create a separate sub-account to be used for margin
calculation purposes only. Positions recorded on OCC's books and
records, but not reflected in the data file, will be attributed to this
sub-account and a margin amount will be calculated for the sub-account.
This margin amount will be added to a clearing member's margin
requirement. OCC has determined to adopt this conservative approach to
dealing with discrepancies between its own records and clearing member
data files in order to ensure that OCC does not collect an inadequate
amount of margin from clearing members.
    The proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws are consistent with the
purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act because
they are designed to permit OCC to perform clearing services for
products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC without
adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions or the
protection of securities investors and the public interest. The
proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any rules of OCC.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or (B)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.
    OCC has also filed the proposed rule change as an advance notice
under Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'').\10\ The
proposed changes contained in the advance notice may be implemented
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(G) of Clearing Supervision Act \11\ if
the Commission does not object to the proposed changes within 60 days
of the later of (i) the date that the advance notice was filed with the
Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested
by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement
the proposed changes contained in the advance notice if the Commission
objects to the proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \11\ 12 U.S.C 5465(e)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed changes raise novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. Proposed changes may be implemented in fewer than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed changes and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed changes on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    The proposals contained in the proposed rule change and advance
notice shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with
respect to the proposals are completed. The clearing agency shall post
notice on its web site of proposed changes that are implemented.

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-OCC-2012-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2012-17. 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 Section, 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 filings will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and
on OCC's Web site (http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_12_17.pdf).
    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-OCC-2012-17
and should be submitted on or before October 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23635 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


67832 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2002 / Notices Responsible Official: Gregg A. Cooke, Regional Administrator.

Oscar Ramirez, Jr., Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division ( 6WQ). [ FR Doc. 02   28352 Filed 11   6   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7405   9]

Notification of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT) Standing Committee on Compliance Assistance Meeting; Open Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notification of public NACEPT standing committee on compliance assistance meeting on December 3, 2002.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92   463, notice is hereby given that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) will hold an open meeting of the NACEPT Standing Committee on Compliance Assistance ( Committee) on Tuesday, December 3, 2002 from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m. The meeting will be held at the Adams Mark Hotel at 111 Pecan Street East, San Antonio, Texas 78205. Seating at the meeting will be on a first come basis and limited time will be provided for public comment. The meeting will focus on the areas of the Compliance Assistance program on which the Committee has been asked to advise the EPA. These are: ( 1) Strengthening the national compliance assistance network by helping identify opportunities to enhance communication among compliance assistance providers and by promoting collaboration in compliance assistance planning and tool development; ( 2) developing and testing performance measurement systems to demonstrate the effectiveness and environmental outcomes of compliance assistance; and ( 3) acting as a sounding board to provide feedback on compliance assistance policies, strategies or other related matters. A formal agenda will be available at the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NACEPT is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92   463. NACEPT provides advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator and other EPA officials on a broad range of domestic and international environmental policy issues. NACEPT consists of a representative cross section of EPA's partners and principal constituents who provide advice and recommendations on policy issues and serve as a sounding board for new strategies. Over the last two years, EPA has undertaken a number of actions to improve our compliance assistance activities. To ensure that the Agency's efforts to improve compliance assistance are implemented in a way that continues to reflect stakeholder needs, NACEPT created a new Standing Committee on Compliance Assistance. This will provide a continuing Federal Advisory Committee forum from which the EPA can continue to receive valuable stakeholder advice and recommendations on compliance assistance activities. For further information concerning the NACEPT Standing Committee on Compliance Assistance, including the upcoming meeting, contact Joanne Berman, Designated Federal Officer ( DFO), on ( 202) 564   7064, or e mail: berman. joanne@ epa. gov. Inspection of Subcommittee Documents: Documents relating to the above topics will be publicly available at the meeting.

Dated: October 31, 2002. Frederick F. Stiehl, Acting Director, Office of Compliance. [ FR Doc. 02   28354 Filed 11   6   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0301; FRL   7279   4]

Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 67979   EUP   E from Syngenta Seeds requesting an experimental use permit ( EUP) for the plant incorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis VIP3A. The Agency has determined that the application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11( a), the Agency is soliciting comments on this application. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0301, must be received on or before December 9, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   5412; e mail address: cole. leonard@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are interested in agricultural biotechnology or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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 Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0301. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 18 Nov 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07NON1. SGM 07NON1 67833 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2002 / Notices Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 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 EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0301. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0301. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0301. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0301. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 18 Nov 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07NON1. SGM 07NON1 67834 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2002 / Notices 1 Imputed costs, such as taxes that would have been paid and return on equity that would have been provided had the services been furnished by a private business firm, are referred to as the private sector adjustment factor ( PSAF). The tenyear recovery rate is based upon the pro forma income statements for Federal Reserve priced services published in the Board's Annual Report. Beginning in 2000, the PSAF included additional financing costs associated with pension assets attributable to priced services. This ten year cost recovery rate has been computed as if these costs were not included in the PSAF calculations prior to 2000. If these costs were included in the calculations, and assuming that the Reserve Banks would not have made any contemporaneous cost or revenue adjustments, the 10 year recovery rate would be 98.7 percent. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Background Syngenta Seeds, 3054 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709   2257, has applied for an EUP for field testing of the plantincorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis VIP3A insect control protein as expressed in cotton plants. The proposed states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The total acreage for this plant incorporated protectant EUP will be 904.5.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

Following the review of the Syngenta Seeds application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

The Agency's authority for taking this action is under 40 CFR part 172.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

Dated: October 29, 2002. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 02   28356 Filed 11   6   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [ Docket No. R   1133]

Federal Reserve Bank Services AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Board has approved the fee schedules for Federal Reserve priced services and electronic connections and a private sector adjustment factor ( PSAF) for 2003 of $ 171.7 million. These actions were taken in accordance with the requirements of the Monetary Control Act of 1980, which requires that, over the long run, fees for Federal Reserve priced services be established on the basis of all direct and indirect costs, including the PSAF. DATES: The new fee schedules become effective January 2, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding the fee schedules: Joseph Baressi, Financial Services Analyst, ( 202/ 452   3959); William Driscoll, Financial Services Analyst, check payments, ( 202/ 452   3117); Edwin Lucio, Financial Services Analyst, ACH payments, ( 202/ 736   5636); Gregory Cannella, Financial Services Analyst, Fedwire funds transfer, Fedwire securities, and noncash collection services, ( 202/ 530   6214); Marybeth Butkus, Senior Financial Services Analyst, special cash services, ( 202/ 452   3917); or Amy Pierce, Senior IT Analyst, electronic connections, ( 202/ 736   5675), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems. For questions regarding the PSAF: Brenda Richards, Senior Financial Analyst, ( 202/ 452   2753) or Gregory Evans, Manager, Financial Accounting, ( 202/ 452   3945), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf ( TDD) only, please call 202/ 263   4869. Copies of the 2003 fee schedules for the check service are available from the Board, the Federal Reserve Banks, or the Reserve Banks' financial services Web site at http:// www. frbservices. org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Priced Services A. Discussion Over the period 1992 through 2001, the Reserve Banks recovered 99.8 percent of their total costs for providing priced services, including special project costs, imputed expenses, and targeted after tax profits or return on equity ( ROE). 1 Table 1 summarizes the priced services' actual, estimated, and budgeted cost recovery rates for 2001, 2002, and 2003 respectively. Cost recovery is estimated to be 92.2 percent in 2002 and budgeted to be 94.4 percent in 2003. The aggregate cost recovery rates are heavily influenced by the performance of the check service, which accounts for approximately 85 percent of the total cost of priced services. The electronic services ( FedACH, Fedwire funds transfer, Fedwire securities, and national settlement) account for approximately 15 percent of costs, while noncash and special cash services represent a de minimis amount.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 18 Nov 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07NON1. SGM 07NON1