[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42048-42050]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17327]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67399; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of a Pilot Program Regarding Price Improvement XL

July 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on July 9, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
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 by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080(n), Price
Improvement XL (``PIXL\SM\'') to extend, through July 18, 2013, a pilot
program (the ``pilot'') concerning (i) the early conclusion of the PIXL
Auction (as described below), and (ii) permitting orders of fewer than
50 contracts into the PIXL Auction. The current pilot is scheduled to
expire July 18, 2012.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

 1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
through July 18, 2013.
Background
    The Exchange adopted PIXL in October, 2010 as a price-improvement
mechanism on the Exchange.\3\ PIXL is a component of the Exchange's
fully automated options trading system, PHLX XL[supreg] that allows an
Exchange member (an ``Initiating Member'') to electronically submit for
execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public
customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against
principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent
(an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the PIXL Order for
electronic execution into the PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to
the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63027 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-108) (Order
Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Proposed
Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 65043 (August 5, 2011), 76 FR 49824 (August 11,
2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-104) (Extending Pilot for Price Improvement
System, Price Improvement XL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by submitting a
PIXL Order in one of three ways:
     First, the Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying a single price at which it seeks to execute the PIXL Order
(a ``stop price'').
     Second, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as
agent on behalf of an Initiating Order the price and size of all
trading interest and responses to the PIXL Auction Notification
(``PAN,'' as described below) (``auto-match''), in which case the PIXL
Order will be stopped at the National Best Bid/Offer (''NBBO'') on the
Initiating Order side of the market (if 50 contracts or greater) or, if
less than 50 contracts, the better of: (i) the PHLX Best Bid/Offer
(``PBBO'') price on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order
improved by at least one minimum price improvement increment, or (ii)
the PIXL Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order), provided
in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO and that
such price is at least one increment better than the limit of an order
on the book on the same side as the PIXL Order.
     Third, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to either: (i) stop the entire order at a
single stop price and auto-match PAN responses, as described below,
together with trading interest, at a price or prices that improve the
stop price to a specified price above or below which the Initiating
Member will not trade (a ``Not Worse Than'' or ``NWT'' price); (ii)
stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN
responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or
(iii) stop the entire order at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side
(if 50 contracts or greater) or the better of: (A) the PBBO price on
the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order improved by one
minimum price improvement increment, or (B) the PIXL Order's limit
price (if the order is a limit order) on the Initiating Order side
provided in either case that such price is at or better than the NBBO
(if for less than 50 contracts), and auto-match PAN responses and
trading interest are at a price or prices that improve the stop price
up to the NWT price. In all cases, if the PBBO on the same side of the
market as the PIXL Order represents a limit order on the book, the stop
price must be at least one minimum price improvement increment better
than the booked limit order's limit price.
    After the PIXL Order is entered, a PAN is broadcast and a one-
second blind Auction ensues. Anyone may respond to the PAN by sending
orders or quotes. At the conclusion of the Auction, the PIXL Order will
be allocated at the best price(s).
    Once the Initiating Member has submitted a PIXL Order for
processing, such PIXL Order may not be modified or cancelled. Under any
of the above circumstances, the Initiating Member's stop price or NWT
price may be improved to the benefit of the PIXL Order during the
Auction, but may not be cancelled.
    After a PIXL Order has been submitted, a member organization
submitting the order has no ability to control the timing of the
execution. The execution is carried out by the Exchange's PHLX
XL[supreg] automated options trading system and pricing is determined
solely by the other orders

and quotes that are present in the Auction.
The Pilot
    Three components of the PILX system were approved by the Commission
on a pilot basis: (1) paragraphs (n)(i)(A)(2) \4\ and (n)(i)(B)(2) of
Rule 1080, relating to auction eligibility requirements; (2) paragraphs
(n)(ii)(B)(4) and (n)(ii)(D) of Rule 1080, relating to the early
conclusion of the PIXL Auction; and (3) paragraph (n)(vii) of Rule
1080, stating that there shall be no minimum size requirement of orders
entered into PIXL. The pilots were approved for a pilot period expiring
on July 18, 2012.\5\ The Exchange notes that during the pilot period it
has been required to submit, and has been submitting, certain data
periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for
all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism.\6\ The
Exchange will continue to provide such data. The Exchange believes
that, because the pilot has been operating for a relatively short
amount of time, the proposed extension should afford the Commission
additional time to evaluate the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On March 9, 2012, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change
to clarify Exchange Rule 1080(n)(i)(A)(2). See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 66583 (March 13, 2012), 77 FR 16108 (March 19, 2012)
(SR-Phlx-2012-032) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Price Improvement System, Price
Improvement XL). The amendment reflected the correct price--at or
better than the NBBO--at which an Initiating Member must guarantee
the execution of a PIXL Order that the Initiating Member submits
into a PIXL Auction.
    \5\ See supra note 3.
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 1080(n)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through July 18, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \9\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that PIXL, including the rules
to which the pilot applies, result in increased liquidity available at
improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating
Member's complete control. The Exchange believes that PIXL promotes and
fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement
to more options contracts.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become
operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-
day operative delay period is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
PIXL pilot programs to continue without interruption. Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-Phlx-2012-94 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-Phlx-2012-94. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2012-94 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17327 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32237-32239]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Information Collection Requirements

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0005-N-11]

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
ICRs describe the nature of the information collections and their
expected burdens. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collections of information
was published on April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16896).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety,
Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5,

1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On April 2, 2010, FRA published a 60-day notice
in the Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was
seeking OMB approval. 75 FR 16896. FRA received no comments after
issuing this 60-day notice. Accordingly, DOT announces that these
information collection activities have been re-evaluated and certified
under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summaries below describe the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The revised
requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by
the PRA.
    Title: Remotely Controlled Switch Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0516.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Title 49, Section 218.30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), ensures that remotely controlled switches are lined
to protect workers who are vulnerable to being struck by moving cars as
they inspect or service equipment on a particular track or,
alternatively, occupy camp cars. FRA believes that production of
notification requests promotes safety by minimizing mental lapses of
workers who are simultaneously handling several tasks. Sections 218.30
and 218.67 require the operator of remotely controlled switches to
maintain a record of each notification requesting blue signal
protection for 15 days. Operators of remotely controlled switches use
the information as a record documenting blue signal protection of
workers or camp cars. This record also serves as a valuable resource
for railroad supervisors and FRA inspectors monitoring regulatory
compliance.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 60,038 hours.
    Title: Bad Order and Home Shop Card.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0519.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 215, each railroad is required to
inspect freight cars placed in service and take the necessary remedial
action when defects are identified. Part 215 defects are specific in
nature and relate to items that have or could have caused accidents or
incidents. Section 215.9 sets forth specific procedures that railroads
must follow when it is necessary to move defective cars for repair
purposes. For example, railroads must affix a ``bad order'' tag
describing each defect to each side of the freight car. It is
imperative that a defective freight car be tagged ``bad order'' so that
it may be readily identified and moved to another location for repair
purposes only. At the repair point, the ``bad order'' tag serves as a
repair record. Railroads must retain each tag for 90 days to verify
that proper repairs were made at the designated location. FRA and State
inspectors review all pertinent records to determine whether defective
cars presenting an immediate hazard are being moved in transportation.
    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 15,750 hours.
    Title: Stenciling Reporting Mark on Freight Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0520.
    Type of Request: without change of a previously approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Title 49, Section 215.301 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, sets forth certain requirements that must be followed by
railroad carriers and private car owners relative to identification
marks on railroad equipment. FRA, railroads, and the public refer to
the stencilling to identify freight cars.

    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 18,750 hours.
    Title: Rear-End Marking Devices.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0523.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR
part 221 which requires railroads to furnish a detailed description of
the type of marking device to be used for the trailing end of rear cars
in order to ensure rear cars meet minimum standards for visibility and
display. Railroads are required to furnish a certification that the
device has been tested in accordance with current ``Guidelines for
Testing of Rear End Marking Devices.'' Additionally, railroads are
required to furnish detailed test records which include the testing
organizations, description of tests, number of samples tested, and the
test results in order to demonstrate compliance with the performance
standard.

    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 39 hours.
    Title: Locomotive Certification (Noise Compliance Regulations).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0527.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Part 210 of title 49 of the United States Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) pertains to FRA's noise enforcement procedures which
encompass rail yard noise source standards published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has the authority to set
these standards under the Noise Control Act of 1972. The information
collected by FRA under Part 210 is necessary to ensure compliance with
EPA noise standards for new locomotives.

    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 2,767 hours.
    Title: Grade Crossing Signal System Safety.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0534.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: FRA believes that highway-rail grade crossing (grade
crossing) accidents resulting from warning system failures can be
reduced. Motorists lose faith in warning systems that constantly warn
of an oncoming train when none is present. Therefore, the fail-safe
feature of a warning system loses its effectiveness if the system is
not repaired within a reasonable period of time. A greater risk of an
accident is present when a warning system fails to activate as a train
approaches a grade crossing. FRA's regulations require railroads to
take specific responses in the event of an activation failure. FRA uses
the information to develop better solutions to the problems of grade
crossing device malfunctions. With this information, FRA is able to
correlate accident data and equipment

malfunctions with the types of circuits and age of equipment. FRA can
then identify the causes of grade crossing system failures and
investigate them to determine whether periodic maintenance, inspection,
and testing standards are effective. FRA also uses the information
collected to alert railroad employees and appropriate highway traffic
authorities of warning system malfunctions so that they can take the
necessary measures to protect motorists and railroad workers at the
grade crossing until repairs have been made.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.83.

    Annual Estimated Burden: 8,152 hours.
    Title: Bridge Worker Safety Rules.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0535.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Section 20139 of Title 49 of the United States Code
required FRA to issue rules, regulations, orders, and standards for the
safety of maintenance-of-way employees on railroad bridges, including
for ``bridge safety equipment'' such as nets, walkways, handrails, and
safety lines, and requirements for the use of vessels when work is
performed on bridges located over bodies of water. FRA has added 49 CFR
part 214 to establish minimum workplace safety standards for railroad
employees as they apply to railroad bridges. Specifically, section
214.15(c) establishes standards and practices for safety net systems.
Safety nets and net installations are to be drop-tested at the job site
after initial installation and before being used as a fall-protection
system; after major repairs; and at six-month intervals if left at one
site. If a drop-test is not feasible and is not performed, then a
written certification must be made by the railroad or railroad
contractor, or a designated certified person, that the net does comply
with the safety standards of this section. FRA and State inspectors use
the information to enforce Federal regulations. The information that is
maintained at the job site promotes safe bridge worker practices.
    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Annual Estimated Burden: 1 hour.
    Title: Railroad Police Officers.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0537.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 207, railroads are required to notify
states of all designated police officers who are discharging their
duties outside of their respective jurisdictions. This requirement is
necessary to verify proper police authority.
    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Annual Estimated Burden: 175 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding these information collections to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503, Attention:
FRA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via e-mail to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, at the following address: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of
the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2010.
Kimberly Coronel,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-13498 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 22482]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM93-11-000]

Notice of Annual Change in the Producer Price Index for Finished
Goods: Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy
Policy Act of 1992

    The Commission's regulations include a methodology for oil
pipelines to change their rates through use of an index system that
establishes ceiling levels for such rates. The Commission bases the
index system, found at 18 CFR 342.3, on the annual change in the
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG), plus one point two
three percent (PPI-FG + 1.23). The Commission determined in an Order
Establishing Index Level,\1\ issued December 17, 2015, that PPI-FG +
1.23 is the appropriate oil pricing index factor for pipelines to use
for the five-year period commencing July 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 153 FERC 61,312, at P 52 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations provide that the Commission will publish annually
an index figure reflecting the final change in the PPI-FG after the
Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the final PPI-FG in May of each
calendar year. The annual average PPI-FG index figures were 198.0 for
2017 and 204.1 for 2018.\2\ Thus, the percent change (expressed as a
decimal) in the annual average PPI-FG from 2017 to 2018, plus 1.23
percent, is positive 0.043108.\3\ Oil pipelines must multiply their
July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, index ceiling levels by positive
1.043108 \4\ to compute their index ceiling levels for July 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2020, in accordance with 18 CFR 342.3(d). For guidance
in calculating the ceiling levels for each 12-month period beginning
January 1, l995,\5\ see Explorer Pipeline Company, 71 FERC 61,416, at
n.6 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the final figure
in mid-May of each year. This figure is publicly available from the
Division of Industrial Prices and Price Indexes of the BLS, at 202-
691-7705, and in print in August in Table 1 of the annual data
supplement to the BLS publication Producer Price Indexes via the
internet at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm. To obtain the BLS data,
scroll down to PPI Databases and click on Top Picks of the Commodity
Data including headline FD-ID indexes (Producer Price Index--PPI).
At the next screen, under the heading PPI Commodity Data, select the
box, Finished goods--WPUFD49207, then scroll to the bottom of this
screen and click on Retrieve data.
    \3\ [204.1-198.0]/198.0 = 0.030808 + 0.0123 = +0.043108.
    \4\ 1 + 0.043108 = 1.043108.
    \5\ For a listing of all prior multipliers issued by the
Commission, see the Commission's website, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/oil/gen-info/pipeline-index.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this Notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print this Notice via the internet through
FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference
Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time)
at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The full text of
this Notice is available on FERC's Home Page at the eLibrary link. To
access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the docket number field and
follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's website during normal business hours. For assistance, please
contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free)
or<PHONE_NUMBER> (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov), or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public
Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 10, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10297 Filed 5-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45381-45383]
[DOCID:fr02se09-17]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0557; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-031-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would revise an existing AD. This proposed
AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it has been noted some difficulties
for the pilot to release oxygen.
    After investigation it has been found that, due to the design of
the oxygen generator release pin, one of the mask's lanyard linked
to the pin can be jammed when it is pulled by a pilot or a
passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reasons described above * * *.

    This revision has been released to clarify the applicability.
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 19,
2009.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0557;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-031-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 10, 2009, we issued AD 2009-13-05, Amendment 39-15944 (74
FR 29126, June 19, 2009). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2009-13-05, SOCATA reported that an additional
serial number not affected by the unsafe condition was inadvertently
included in the applicability for the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD. As a result, we included that additional serial number in AD
2009-13-05.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued AD No. 2009-0096R1, dated July 10, 2009,
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it has been noted some difficulties
for the pilot to release oxygen.
    After investigation it has been found that, due to the design of
the oxygen generator release pin, one of the mask's lanyard linked
to the pin can be jammed when it is pulled by a pilot or a
passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA has released Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in
case of failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard
in order to activate the oxygen generator.
    This revision has been released to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue is under
preparation. Once this modification has been release, this AD is
expected to be revised to confirm the acceptability of that
modification.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    SOCATA has issued SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot Operating Handbook
(POH), Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009. The actions
described in page 3.13.5 of this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another

country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 147 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $5,880, or $40 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15944 (74 FR
29126, June 19, 2009), and adding the following new AD:

SOCATA: Docket No. FAA-2009-0557; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-
031-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 19, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2009-13-05; Amendment 39-15944.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following model and serial number
airplanes that are:
    (i) Certificated in any category; and
    (ii) Equipped with a chemical oxygen generation system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Model                             Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TBM 700..........................  1 through 204, 206 through 239, and
                                    241 through 243.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 35: Oxygen.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it has been noted some difficulties
for the pilot to release oxygen.
    After investigation it has been found that, due to the design of
the oxygen generator release pin, one of the mask's lanyard linked
to the pin can be jammed when it is pulled by a pilot or a
passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA has released Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in
case of failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard
in order to activate the oxygen generator.
    This revision has been released to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue is under
preparation. Once this modification has been release, this AD is
expected to be revised to confirm the acceptability of that
modification.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Before further flight after July 9, 2009 (the effective date
retained from AD 2009-13-05), insert Page 3.13.5 of Temporary
Revision No. 3, dated March 2009, into the Emergency Procedures
section and the Limitations sections of SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH).
    (2) Under 14 CFR 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Administration
Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), the owner/operator holding at least a
private pilot certificate is allowed to insert the temporary
revision into the POH. Make an entry into the aircraft logbook
showing compliance with this portion of the AD per compliance with
section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to Attn: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106;

telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2009-0096R1, dated July 10, 2009, and SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH), Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March
2009, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 26, 2009.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21145 Filed 9-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28993]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0010]

Report, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on March
14, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards (NVS-121), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, West Building W43-462, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. McKenzie can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: 49 CFR 571.125, Warning Devices.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0506.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30112 and 30117 of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended (``the Safety Act''),
authorized the issuance of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). The Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such
rules and regulations as she/he deems necessary. Using this authority,
the agency issued FMVSS No.125, ``Warning Devices'' (Appendix 2) which
applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are
designed to be carried mandatory in buses and trucks that have a Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and voluntarily
in other vehicles. These devices are used to warn approaching traffic
of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be
permanently affixed to the vehicles.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for profit organizations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 3.
    Annual Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1 hour.
    Frequency of Collection:
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-11598 Filed 5-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2288]
[FR Doc No: 2012-696]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12851-002 and 14082-000]

FFP Project 7, LLC and Northland Power Mississippi River LLC;
Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

    The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on February 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed
projects to be located on the Mississippi River, near the town of New
Orleans, in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, Louisiana. The applications
were filed by FFP Project 7, LLC for Project No. 12851-002, and
Northland Power Mississippi River LLC for Project No. 14082-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2012, at 9 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\2\ The priority established by this
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: January 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-696 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19725-19726]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0549]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Part 65--
Certification: Airmen Other Than Flight Crewmembers, Subpart C--
Aircraft Dispatchers and Appendix A to Part 65--Aircraft Dispatcher
Courses

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on June 24, 2021. The collection involves the information
that each applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate or FAA
approval of an aircraft dispatcher course must submit to the FAA. These
applications, reports and training course materials are provided to the
local Flight Standards District Office of the FAA that oversees the
certificates and FAA approvals. The collection is necessary for the FAA
to determine qualification and the ability of the applicant to safely
dispatch aircraft. Without this collection of information, applicants
for a certificate or course approval would not be able to receive
certification or approval. The collection of information for those who
choose to train aircraft dispatcher applicants is to protect the
applicants by ensuring that they are properly trained.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 5, 2022.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra L. Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Invited: You are asked to
comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA
to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0648.
    Title: Part 65--Certification: Airmen Other Than Flight
Crewmembers, Subpart C--Aircraft Dispatchers and Appendix A to Part
65--Aircraft Dispatcher Courses.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on June 24, 2021 (86 FR 33469). This collection involves
the information that each applicant for an aircraft dispatcher
certificate or FAA approval of an aircraft dispatcher course must
submit to the FAA to comply with 14 CFR part 65, subpart C and Appendix
A. These applications, reports and training course materials are
provided to the responsible Flight Standards Office of the FAA that
oversees the certificates and FAA approvals.
    This collection involves the knowledge testing that each applicant
for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must successfully complete or
information required to obtain FAA approval of an aircraft dispatcher
course in order to comply with 14 CFR part 65, subpart C and Appendix
A. These applications, reports and training course materials are
provided to the responsible Flight Standards Office of the FAA which
oversees the certificates and FAA approvals.
    The collection is necessary for the FAA to determine qualification
and the ability of the applicant to safely dispatch aircraft. Without
this collection of information, applicants for a certificate or course
approval would not be able to receive certification or approval. The
collection of information for those who choose to train aircraft
dispatcher applicants is to protect the applicants by ensuring that
they are properly trained.

    Respondents: 51 Dispatch Schools and 918 Students.
    Frequency: As required by regulation.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies per requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,393.75 Hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2022.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector.
[FR Doc. 2022-07069 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 4360]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Federal Obligated
Property Release at Cartersville-Bartow Airport, Cartersville, Georgia

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
considering a request from the Cartersville-Bartow Airport Authority to
waive the requirement for three (3) parcels (0.138 acres in Fee Simple
and 1.469 & 0.479 acres in Easement) of federally obligated property,
located at the Cartersville-Bartow Airport be used for aeronautical
purposes. Currently, ownership of the property provides for protection
of FAR Part 77 surfaces and compatible land use which would continue to
be protected with deed restrictions required in the transfer of land
ownership.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by prior appointment at
the following location: FAA/Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Rob
Rau, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to
the FAA at the following address: FAA/Atlanta Airports District Office,
Attn: Rob Rau, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, College Park, Georgia
30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. E. Keith Lovell, Attorney, Cartersville-
Bartow Airport Authority at the following address: Archer & Lovell,
P.C., On Behalf of: Cartersville-Bartow Airport Authority, P.O. Box
323, Cartersville, Georgia 30120.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Rau, Atlanta Airports District
Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220, College Park, Georgia 30337-
2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Cartersville-Bartow Airport Authority to release three (3) parcels
(0.138 acres in Fee Simple and 1.469 & 0.479 acres in Easement) of
federally obligated property at the Cartersville-Bartow Airport. This
property was originally acquired from the Chemical Products Corporation
with an Airport Improvement Program (AIP #3-13-0029-02) grant in 1985.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Cartersville-Bartow Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 20, 2016.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-01510 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Thomas Weimer this afternoon about some further
developments.  We have two laboratories, one in
Knoxville, Tennessee, where we do all of our U.S.
testing for plasma and another one in Marburg, Germany.
In Germany, we started our PCR testing in July 1997; in
the U.S., in April 1998 under an IND and to this date

95
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
we've around five million collections in our pool
protocol.
Slide, please.  Overall, our PCR objectives
are the following three.  Screen all PCR, screen with
PCR, all serology-negative samples; interdict the PCR-
reactive units prior to their pooling and use; and then,
for our donors, to notify them and counsel them with
this PCR information.
I'd like to present to you some of our on-
going raw data.  We do test, as noted, with HBV, HCV and
HIV.  We've been able to identify, up until this date of
around November, 56 positive units which we traced back
to 29 donors, interdicting these number of units; 517
HCV from 144 positive donors; and five positive HIV from
four positive donors.  So the bottom line being an
interdiction removal of 1,139 units that probably would
not have been caught by serology.
Again, this is also going on in Europe and
just to give you an idea of some of the numbers there.
They have 21, 140 and 0 for their positive units,
interdicting another 161 units from what they test in
Germany.
Since we are currently in the IND, and it
has a clinical end to it, this is what we have to do for

96
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
what we call our clinical substudy follow up.  We
recruit or try to recruit, at least, our PCR reactive
donors into the study, follow them monthly, and sample
for PCR and serology until they seroconvert.  I'd like
to show you some data from our substudy.  Currently,
we're running about -- under a 30 percent enrollment
rate.  We try to get everyone back.  They don't, but our
numbers are building.  And again, this is raw data and
we're in the middle of the study, but we're seeing, in
general, a majority of our reactive, PCR reactive donors
to be seroconverting.  There are some studies that we're
looking at now where there seems like an anomalous
number of HCVs who have completed the study but not
seroconverted.  We're looking into the details for that,
and we hope to be able to identify exactly what's going
on for these cases.
HBV.  Again, we have one person who's
completed but not converted, and we're looking into the
reason for that as well.
Speaking of HBV, since we're one of the few
companies to be doing this and have some numbers, we see
some importance in trying to follow up and look at the
rationale behind doing HBV and is it saving us any
window period of time.  This is simply reflecting some

97
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
panels.  And this is the number of days between our
first PCR reactive HVSAG nonreactive sample and our
first PCR reactive HVSAG reactive sample, again, in
panels, so not every panel is represented by the same
time lags in between.  If you look at the numbers here
and draw an average, it's pretty close to the data that
was presented earlier today of a potential window
savings of in the high teens.  And when we have our real
data with our real donors, what preliminarily we found
is it's in the same ballpark.
Next slide.  So in brief summary, we feel
that we're in the middle of a very strong and positive
PCR IND.  We are effectively screening 100 percent of
our plasma.  We are interdicting plasma from our
manufacturing pools that otherwise would have gotten
through if we had just used standard serology.  And we
think and we intend to use this to further help our
donors, as well, in helping identify their diseased
state earlier than with standard serology.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
DR. DAYTON:  Thank you very much.  Our next
speaker is Brian Renoe from Bayer/Roche.
DR. RENOE:  As Alan said, we're not testing

98
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
all of our samples with NGI as well.  We're using Roche
for ours.  Let's go to the first slide.
The testing I'm going to talk to you about
is happening at the Raleigh Test Laboratory in Raleigh,
North Carolina.  We got started on this in HCV in
September of 1997.  I'd like to just kind of give you an
overview of what's happening.  We're getting samples
from 120 plasma centers.  If you could just show the
next slide, please.
The samples come to us every morning.  We
get about 10,000 samples by Federal Express.  We go
through this flow diagram, and it's not to really abuse
you with a flow diagram, but I just wanted to point out
that we tried to keep it as much in parallel as
possible.  The extraction of the nucleic acids for both
the HIV and HCV is happening virtually simultaneously,
and then we go through a parallel amplification
detection process.
The entirety of what you see here for HCV
and HIV is a turnaround time of about four and a half
days so far, so if we get a sample from the plasma
center, the results are back in their hands in hard copy
form in about four and a half days.
Next slide, please.  First, let me tell you

99
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
a little about HIV.  HIV, we only got started on this
year.  We elected to use an established reagent
manufacturer for the kits so we're using the Roche HIV-1
Ampliscreen, Version 1.5.  This kit is sharing the
Multiprep specimen extraction or up to the extraction
before amplification with HCV.  We're using 96 sample
minipools.  So far in the last three months or so we've
done about 390,000 donations, 60,000 donors from 120
plasma centers.
Next slide, please.  I don't have a lot of
data then to show you, but we have been able to identify
eight positive donors in that period of time.  And most
of them were in the first couple of weeks.  Of those,
we've got three that are HIV-1 NAT-positive, p24
negative HIV-1,2 antibody negative and then you can see
the rest.  I won't read through it.  We've been able to
enroll two of those first three donors and one in the
category of NAT positive, p24 negative antibody positive
at this point.
Next slide.  This is just to show you, we
saw most of them very much up front.  I think this is
probably the experience of most people is when we got
started we kind of cleared them out of the pool of
donors that were out there.  So virtually all of those

100
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
were within the first few weeks of HIV testing.
Next slide.  What we've tried to do is just
a quick quantitation on some of those, and we were able
to go back and catch about five samples here, six
samples, and you can see that it runs a titer in terms
of copies per mL everywhere from 60 to about 600,000
copies for mL.  So it's certainly a range of effective
-- I guess I don't want to say infection, that's what
I'm hesitating on -- but effective titers.
Next slide, please.  Okay, we go to HCV.
We've got a lot more experience there.  We got started
in September 1997, and this is dated through November of
this year.  Currently, we're using -- we got the Roche
Ampliscreen kit, Version 2.2.  Same sort of data, 120
plasma centers.  We looked at 3.6 million donations so
far which represents well over 200,000 donors.
Next slide.  Here we've got a lot more
people that we've been able to -- we found as NAT
positive, 208 NAT positive antibody negative donors so
far.  Ninety-six of those have been able to enroll in
follow up studies.  Six of them are pending enrollments.
Last time I talked with the FDA, they were concerned
with the number that we weren't able to locate, and so
we went back and actually tried to relocate a number of

101
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
these donors, and actually 90 of that 208 just won't
respond to letters or telephone calls, so we're
considering them virtually lost to follow-up at this
point.  Five of them declined.  Five agreed to
participate but didn't show up, and then you can see the
last six have other reasons for not being there.
(Laughter.)
Next slide, please.  What it amounts to for
HCV, on a monthly basis, we're looking at something like
11 or 12 donations, I'm sorry, donors per month that
we're identifying as NAT positive.  We're doing the same
sort of thing.  These people are supposed to be serology
negative before we see the samples, so these samples
would not have been normally caught, unless we were
doing NAT screening.
Next slide.  Of those that we've been able
to follow up, 62 of them have gone to seroconversion.
Again, the same sort of data.  We're seeing 57 days as
the average window period.  One donor, interestingly
enough, that we identified fairly early on has still not
seroconverted.  At least the last time we saw a sample
was May of 1999 of this year and we still are seeing
NAT-positive, but antibody negative on that particular
donor.  So, next slide.

102
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
This is just to give you a histogram of the
seroconversion time, if you will.  Sometimes when you
put up a number, everybody thinks it's happening at a
very nice normal distribution.  Obviously, it's, there's
a lot of spread here and this is pretty much an echo of
what you've seen from the other studies.
Next slide.  We also wanted to go back and
just see what kind of range of titers on those donors
that are coming up as NAT-positive we are actually
finding or measuring.  So we picked a number of donors
here that during the 30 days prior to the NAT positive
result had a negative result.  And you can see that
those cover a fairly broad spectrum of concentrations
when we do -- when we concentrated them here.
So it's a little bit of a surprise to us
because we didn't expect to see quite as many highs, but
we were pleasantly surprised by the number of lows since
they're virtually below our 95 percent detection limit.
Next slide, please.  Okay, so a conclusion.
Basically, the NAT -- using NAT to identify suspect
infectious plasma donations certainly seems to be
working for us as a part of the source plasma industry.
When you couple that -- again, I'm seeing the same
things in combination with the Amplicon donor programs

103
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
that are in place, inventory hold, QPP, viral
inactivation procedures and viral remover processes --
we think this is a very effective tool for removing
these NAT positive and suspect infectious donations from
the plasma that goes into our products.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
DR. BISWAS:  Okay, we will now go over to
the session on blood components for transfusion and our
first speaker is Christina Giachetti, Senior Program
Manager of Gen-Probe in San Diego, California.
DR. GIACHETTI:  If I can have the first
slide, please?  Okay, my presentation is on the TMA,
HIV, HCV assays and the assays for HIV and HCV that earn
a detection.
Our assay objectives are to have a
sensitivity of at least 100 copies per mL for each
target, detection of HCV and HIV subtypes and closure of
the seroconversion window, specificity of higher than
99.5 percent, incorporation of an internal control for
monitoring the assay in each sample, discriminatory
assays for resolution of multiplex assay reactives, and
we're going to use the same assay formulations for our
semi-automatic system or the enhanced semi-automatic

104
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
system, as well as for our future fully automated TIGRIS
instrument.
Our assay protocol contains the following
steps and here are pictures of the instrumentation
involved.  First step is pipetting of the samples with
a TECAN, auto pipetting the TECAN pipette calibrators,
the specimens as well as the target capture reaction.
Next step is sample processing, of course, viral lysis
and RNA capture with the help of the target capture
system.  Next is amplification with the transcription-
mediated amplification, detection with the hybridization
protection assay and finally reading the results using
a luminometer.
Our technology is all hybridization based.
The first step is target capture where the target
capture reaction is added to the specimen.  This would
produce lysis of the virus and then the presence of
capture oligomers or capture of our viral RNA to a
capture oligomer which also will attach via a poly DA
and poly DT test to magnetic particles.  And then we use
magnetic separations to separate our captured RNA from
the rest of the specimen.
Amplification used in transcription-
mediated amplification which utilizes two enzymes,

105
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
reverse transcriptase and T7 polymerase, amplifies RNA
or DNA targets, produces RNA Amplicon, is beneficial,
very efficient and isothermal.
Hybridizations were used, hybridization
protection assay that use acridinium-labeled probes to
be able to hybridize with our Amplicon.  After
hybridization, there is a selection state where the
label in the unprotected, unhybridized probe gets
destroyed while the label in the probe that is
hybridized to the target is protected and followed by
detection with chemiluminescence.
We use the dual kinetic analysis to be able
to differentiate internal control signals versus targets
seen not in this sample.  We do this by the use of two
different probes with different kinetics of light-off.
We label our internal control with a flasher probe with
very fast kinetics of light-off and we label our probe,
probes to the target, with a glower probe with slow
kinetics of light-off.  We use exponential tight feed
algorithms to be able to calculate the signals from the
target versus internal control.
This contains an internal control in the
samples of assay calibrators, three negative
calibrators, three HIV positive calibrators and three

106
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
HCV positive calibrators.  Calibrators are run at the
beginning of each run.
The internal control is an RNA transcript
which is another in nature specimen with a target
capture reagent; is detected with our internal control
pressure probe; controls for HIV and ACV RNA capture
amplification, and detection;  and monitors performance
of reagents, operator and instrumentation. Our initial
internal control failure rate in our hands is 0.5
percent and a repetitive internal control failure rate,
indicative of inhibition, is extremely rare.
Our assay validity has two criteria:
sample validity as well as run validity.  In sample
validity, the internal control signal must be higher
than the cut-off in nonreactive samples, but the
internal control signal is not used in reactive samples.
In run validity, seven out of nine
calibrators, (2 out of three of each kind) have to be
valid and also have a criteria center of less than ten
percent of invalid random results in the complete run.
Calibrators are used to calculate the floating cutoff.
Receiver Operator Curve analysis of the specificity and
sensitivity data indicates the for cut-off to obtain
higher than 99.5 percent on specificity and sensitivity.

107
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Our calculations indicate that cutoff
between 45,000 and 72,000 for the multiplex assay will
give these bodies of sensitivity and specificity.
Results for the discriminatory assay show 39, between
39,000 and 255,000 and for the assay discriminatory,
it's between 44,000 and 526,000.  This indicates of the
assay where variations of the cutoff will not be by
modifying our specificity and sensitivity.
I will switch now and talk a little bit
about assay performance.  I will show data from an
analytical sensitivity and specificity and later on in
the afternoon session Sheryl McDonough will give some
results regarding clinical sensitivity and
reproducibility.
We evaluated an analytical sensitivity of
five different lots of reagents using in-house
analytical sensitivity panels for HIV as well as for
HCV.  Here, we see in all the cases with five lots of
reagents, we have 100 percent detection of the 100
copies per mL level and of the 30 copies per mL levels,
we are higher than 90 percent.
Results for HVC are similar.  Again, we
have 100 percent detection at 100 genomic equivalents

108
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
per mL and we have higher than 90 percent of the 30
genomic equivalents per mL and results are very similar
for the different lots of reagents showing
reproducibility.
To compute the sensitivities, we have
tested several nucleic acid standards in panels, like in
this case, I show results from the CBER panel for HIV
where we are able to detect the 100 copies per
sensitivity panel members as well as the ten copy and
the 50 copy.
For HCV, we have tested also CBER panel as
well as dilutions of the WHO standard.  Again, we show
that we can detect a positivity to the ten copies per mL
panel level for the CBER panel and were able to detect
down to three international units per mL from the
dilution of the WHO panel.  This confirms our analytical
sensitivity.
We did a lot of hybridization for subtype
detection.  Here, is a summary slide where we show about
200 different viral isolates and 200 different specimens
infected with different HIV subtypes, which were tested
and the assay was positive in all of them.  As an
example, I can show results from the subtype CBER panel
where we have made serial dilutions of the panels and

109
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
test which is our limit of detections.  In all the
cases, our limit of detection was always lower than 100
copies per mL.
We also looked at sensitivities of those
who have prepared separate transcripts and here we show
100 percent positivity rate for transcript for subtypes
G, A, H, as well as O.
HCV subtypes also were evaluated with clean
colored specimens as shown in this slide, as well as
with RNA transcript and here we show again 100 percent
detection for HCV1a at 100 genomic equivalents per mL as
well as for HCV2b.
Specificity was tested in normal plasmas as
well as in samples.  We put in interference substances.
The summary slide for specificity in  normal plasma as
we tried a lot of variation shows initial reactive rates
for the multiplex assay is 0.79 percent.  HIV
discriminatory at 0.23 and HCV discriminatory 0.15.  In
all the cases, the repetitive reactive rate is zero
percent for 100 percent specificity.  In each, internal
control failure rates also are shown here: 0.31 percent
for Multiplex, 0.65 and 0.70 percent for the
discriminatories again with zero percent of repetitive
initial control failure rate.

110
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Conclusions from our assays are we have 95
percent detection of 100 copies per mL level for both
targets.  Fifty percent detection as a copy for HIV and
five genomic equivalents for HCV.  Detection before
seroconversion was 16.3 days before antibody for HIV and
7.5 before antigen.  For HCV, an average of 32.8 days.
Subtype detection was demonstrated.  Also
for a specificity, we have 100 percent specificity with
zero percent repetitive reactive rate in normal blood
donor populations.  No interfering substances were found
so far for the zero percent repetitive internal control


July 26,2002 Mr. Maximo Diaz Mail Code: 5304W USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, Washington, DC 20460 J. W.

Subject: Additional Information Requested for Petition for Rulemaking K171K172 LDR Dear Max,

We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and other EPA staff members on Tuesday, July 16 to discuss our Petition for Rulemaking to change the LDR s for the catalyst material, K17VK172. The open discussion was helpful in clarifying the agency position and the activities that are expected in the next four to six weeks. We expect that once you complete your review of the data and make a recommendation to management, appropriate resources will be assigned to this petition so that it can move fotward in a reasonable manner.

During the meeting there was a request for some additional information about the PAH data that was included in the original petition, the final disposal method for the material that was sampled, and clarification of a waste code. Specifically, the data tables did not contain the results for benz ( a) anthracene, which is a regulated constituent for K171 ( and should be regulated for K172). This constituent was included in the analytical results as part of the PAH analysis, but was inadvertently left out of the summary tables. Attached are revised Tables 1 and 2 for the appendix to the Scherger Report, Attachment B in the Rulemaking Petition, which show the benz ( a) anthracene results for all samples. Also, attached is a revised summary for the Supplement to the Rulemaking Petition, showing the results for benz ( a) anthracene. This data was included in the data sheets attached to the Supplement, but was not included in the summarized table in the text. The results follow the same pattern as the other PAH results. There were no confirmed positive results for benz ( a) anthracene, but the detection limits are elevated above the LDR limits of 3.4 mgkgfor several samples. These elevated limits were caused by interferences present in the sample extracts and by the presence of oil and related hydrocarbons that made it impossible to concentrate the extracts. The issue of special sample cleanup was briefly discussed at the meeting as a method to remove interferences. While special procedures sometimes can remove interferences, these attempts are futile when the extracts cannot be concentrated sufficiently to meet the required detection limits. The footnotes in the tables highlight the various reasons for the elevated detection limits.

In several cases, the detection limits were elevated due to the presence of other cyclic and straight chain hydrocarbons. The presence of these constituents was recognized as an issue by EPA during the original rulemaking. It was assumed that the treatment of catalyst for PAH s and reactivity would reduce the levels of these other organic materials. However, with the lack of a test for reactivity and the lack of 0 Page2 October 20,2003 a standard for PAH s for K172, coupled with high detection limits above the LDR being used to justify the declaration that the catalyst does not contain PAH s, organic constituents are being landfilledwithout treatment. Even if the actual regulated PAH s ( five specific compounds) are not present above the LDR s, the elevated detection limits strongly suggest the presence of other related materials that should receive treatment.

A question was also raised about the actual treatment or disposal location for each of the wastes that were sampled and analyzed. The final disposal option is known for all but one of the waste streams sampled. The attached revised Tables 1 and 2 ( Appendix to the Scherger Report, Attachment B in the Rulemaking Petition), show the treatmenVdisposa1 method used for each of the wastes. Most of the wastes in this dataset were recycled, which would be expected. The primary source for samples was from wastes that were being shipped to the recycling facilities. Samples of waste that went to landfill were only available in situations where a generator supplied a sample to a recyclingfacility as part of the bidding process.

During the meeting, a question was raised about the coding of a waste stream. The waste stream code information ( K171 or K172) is based on the information provided by the generator and as reviewed by the recycling facilities staff. Based on the best informationprovided by the generators about the process generating each waste stream, we believe the waste codes stated in the data tables are correct.

I hope that the enclosed data and this discussion answer the questions that were raised at the meeting. If you or any other EPA reviewers have any additional questions, please contact me directly at anytime.

Sincerely,

Dale A Scherger Consultant for The Ferroalloys Association Enclosures ( 3)

cc: John Hilbert, The Ferroalloys Association Jim Allen, Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey Robert Phelan, Environmental Issues Management Matthew Hale, USEPA Gail Cooper, USEPA Scherger Associates July 23,2002 TABLE 1 PAH RESULTS FOR SPENT CATALYSTS Sample Number LDR A B C F G H I J Date Limit 2/ 21/ 01 2/ 21/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 Waste Code K171 K171 K171 K172 K171 K171 K171 K171 K171 Disposal Method Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle RESULTS Benz( a) anthracene mgkl 3.4 c33.3 c333.0 c33.0 c33.2 c32.5 c0.33 c33.0 c332.0 Chrysene mgkg 3.4 c33.3 c333.0 ~ 33.0 ~ 33.2 ~ 32.5 c0.33 c33.0 c332.0 Naphthalene mgkl 5.6 c33.3 c333.0 c33.0 43.2 c32.5 c0.33 c33.0 c332.0 Phenanthrene mgm 5.6 c33.3 471 c33.0 c33.2 c32.5 c0.33 c33.0 c332.0 Pyrene msn< g 8.2 c33.3 1950 c33.0 c33.2 c32.5 3.7 c33.0 c332.0 Lab notes by sample ( 1 Sample Number LDR K L D E M N 0 P Date Limit 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 3/ 14/ 01 5/ 17/ 00 1/ 18/ 01 6/ 4/ 99 10/ 14/ 99 Waste Code K171 K171 K171 K172 K172 K172 K172 K172 NR Disposal Method Recycle Recycle Recycle Recycle Landfill Landfill Landfill Not known RESULTS Benz( a) anthracene mgkl 3.4 < 3.3 c32.4 ~ 32.8 < om ~ 50.0 c1.3 N/ A c33.0 Chrysene mgkg 3.4 c3.3 c32.4 c32.8 c0.33 ~ 50.0 3.0 N/ A c33.0 Naphthalene mgkg 5.6 c3.3 c32.4 c32.8 0.485 50 J 7.4 N/ A c33.0 Phenanthrene mgkg 5.6 c3.3 c32.4 c32.8 c0.33 50 J 41.0 N/ A c33.0 Pyrene mgkg 8.2 c3.3 c32.4 c32.8 c0.33 5OJ 17.0 N/ A c33.0 Lab notes by sample ( 1) The sample extract could not be concentrated to the normal final volume. This results in elevated PRL ( practical reporting limit) ( 2) Sample was diluted due to high concentrations of non target compounds. ( 3) Internal standard and surrogate failure attributed to matrix interference based on review of chromatogram. ( 4) Sample diluted 150to 1 due to matrix and presence many compounds; J means detected between the MDL ( 0.33 mg/ kg) and the PQL ( 50.0 mgkg) ( 5) Author's notation  Sample diluted 4: l and 20: l due to the presence of numerous target compounds including acenaphthene, fluoranthene, flourene in addition to LDR PAH compounds ( 6) Author's notation  No PAH data reported. Only TCLP was performedfor limited organics. Samples showed leachable levels of BTEX. NR Not reported  K171 or K172 Prepared by Dale Scherger Table 1 revised July 23,2002 Added Disposal Method and benz ( a) anthracene results . _ .__ ~ Scherger Associates July 23,2002 Table 2  PAH Results for Spent Catalyst Sample Number LDR w1 w2 w3 w4 Date Limit 1I31IO1 1I31IO1 1/ 31/ 01 1/ 31/ 01 Waste Code K171 K172 K172 K172 K172 ( K171lK172) Disposal Method Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill RESULTS Benz( a) anthracene ~ 3.27 ~ 3.25 ~ 3.28 ~ 3.26 Chrysene ~ 3.27 < 3.25 ~ 3.28 ~ 3.26 Naphthalene ~ 3.27 ~ 3.25 < 3.28 ~ 3.26 Phenanthrene < 3.27 ~ 3.25 6.56 ~ 3.26 Pyrene < 3.27 ~ 3.25 < 3.28 ~ 3.26 Lab notes by sample ( 11 ( 1)

Sample Number LDR w5 W6 w7 W8 Date Limit 1/ 31/ 01 1I31IO1 1I31IO1 1I31IO1 Waste Code K171 K172 K172 K172 K172 ( K171K172) Disposal Method Landfill LandfitI Landfill Landfill Landfill RESULTS Benz( a) anthracene ~ 3.30 < 3.31 < 3.29 ~ 3.32 Chrysene ~ 3.30 ~ 3.31 ~ 3.29 ~ 3.32 Naphthalene ~ 3.30 ~ 3.31 ~ 3.29 ~ 3.32 Phenanthrene 5.58 5.62 ~ 3.29 ~ 3.32 Pyrene ~ 3.30 < 3.31 ~ 3.29 ~ 3.32 Lab notes by sample ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1)

( 1) The sample extract could not be concentrated to the normalfinal volume. This results in elevated PRL ( practical reporting limit) ( 2) Sample was diluted due to high concentrations of non target compounds.

Prepared by Dale Scherger Table 1 revised July 23,2002 Added Disposal Method and benz ( a) anthracene results .. Scherger Associates July 23,2002 Revised Table  Adding benz ( a) anthracene Table on Page 4 and 5 of Supplement Parameter Total antimony Total cobalt Total molybdenum Total nickel Total vanadium TCLP nickel TCLP vanadium Benz ( a) anthracene Chrysene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene to Petition on Rulemaking Concentration Reference Value 159 mgkg 1210 mgkg 12,700 mgkg 15,800 mgkg 31,500 mgkg 31 mg/ l I l1 mg/ l ( LDR) 24 mg/ l I 1" 6mg/ 1 ( LDR) ND( e26 mgkg) 1 3.4 rngkg ( UTS)

13 mgk ( J) 3.4 mgkg ( UTS)

ND( e26 mgkg) 5.6 mgkg ( UTS)

150 mgkg 38 mgkg I 8* 2mgkg ( UTSI Prepared by Dale Scherger Table revised July 23,2002 Added benz ( a) anthracene results


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41137-41138]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0397]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0077

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0077,
Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer Continental
Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements; without
change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 9,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2022-0397] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-6P), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. SE, STOP 7710,
WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0397], and
must be received by September 9, 2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, and Outer
Continental Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0077.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with the
maritime security requirements mandated by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, 46 U.S.C. 70103 (formerly 33 U.S.C.
1226(c)), 46 U.S.C. 70034 (formerly 33 U.S.C. 1231), 46 U.S.C. chapter
701, 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70052 (formerly 50 U.S.C. 191 & 192). Security
assessments, security plans and other security-related requirements are
in Title 33 CFR parts 101 through 106.
    Need: This information is needed to determine if vessels and
facilities are in compliance with certain security standards.
    Forms:
     CG-6025, Facility Vulnerability and Security Measures
Summary
     CG-6025A, Vulnerability and Security Measures Addendum
    Respondents: Vessel and facility owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from
1,198,530 hours to 1,070,430 hours a year, due to a decrease in the
estimated annual number of responses.

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

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-14697 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P