[Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2608-2610]
[DOCID:fr17ja06-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53081; File No. SR-NASD-2005-154]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Modify Pricing for NASD
Members Using the Nasdaq Market Center and Nasdaq's Brut Facility

January 9, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 28, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. On December
30, 2005, Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ Nasdaq has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory
organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Partial Amendment No. 1 (``Amendment No. 1'') clarified that
the proposed rule change is a pilot program.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for NASD members using the
Nasdaq Market Center and Nasdaq's Brut Facility (``Brut''). Nasdaq
states that it will implement the proposed rule change on January 1,
2006 for a pilot period running through February 28, 2006.
    The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is below.
Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].
* * * * *

7010. System Services

    (a)-(h) No change.

    (i) Nasdaq Market Center and Brut Facility Order Execution
    (1)-(4) No change.
    (5) There shall be no charges or credits for order entry,
execution, routing, or cancellation by members accessing the Nasdaq
Market Center or Nasdaq's Brut Facility to buy or sell exchange-listed
securities subject to the Consolidated Quotations Service and
Consolidated Tape Association plans, other than:
    (A)-(D) No change.
    (E) for a pilot period beginning December 1, 2005 and ending
[December 31, 2005]
    February 28, 2006, a credit of $0.0005 per share executed to a
member providing liquidity for a transaction in the following stocks:
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD); Apache Corp. (APA); AT&T Corp. (T);
Avaya, Inc. (AV); Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI); BJ Services Co. (BJS);
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY); Burlington Resources, Inc. (BR);
Calpine Corp. (CPN); Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH); Citigroup Inc. (C);
ConocoPhillips (COP); Corning Inc. (GLW); Devon Energy Corp. (DVN); EMC
Corp. (EMC); Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM); Ford Motor Co. (F); Gateway, Inc.
(GTW); General Electric Co. (GE); Halliburton Co. (HAL); Hewlett-
Packard Co. (HPQ); Johnson & Johnson (JNJ); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM);
Kohl's Corp. (KSS); LSI Logic Corp. (LSI); Micron Technology, Inc.
(MU); Motorola, Inc. (MOT); Noble Corp. (NE); Occidental Petroleum
Corp. (OXY); Office Depot Inc. (ODP); Pfizer Inc. (PFE); Phelps Dodge
Corp. (PD); Pulte Homes, Inc. (PHM); Qwest Communications International
Inc. (Q); Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB); Solectron Corp. (SLR); Sovereign
Bancorp, Inc. (SOV); Time Warner, Inc. (TWX); Valero Energy Corp.
(VLO); and Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ).
    (6) No change.
    (j)-(v) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq 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
    In SR-NASD-2005-137 and SR-NASD-2005-138,\6\ Nasdaq created a pilot
program under which liquidity providers (i.e., market participants that
post quotes or orders that are accessed by incoming orders) \7\ may
receive a credit of $0.0005 per share executed with respect to forty
stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52939 (December 9,
2005), 70 FR 75229 (December 19, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-137) and 52938
(December 9, 2005), 70 FR 75231 (December 19, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-
138).
    \7\ Telephone conversation between John Yetter, Associate
General Counsel, Exchange, and Michou Nguyen, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, on January 4, 2006.
    \8\ Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD); Apache Corp. (APA); AT&T
Corp. (T); Avaya, Inc. (AV); Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI); BJ Services
Co. (BJS); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY); Burlington Resources,
Inc. (BR); Calpine Corp. (CPN); Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH);
Citigroup Inc. (C); ConocoPhillips (COP); Corning Inc. (GLW); Devon
Energy Corp. (DVN); EMC Corp. (EMC); Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM); Ford
Motor Co. (F); Gateway, Inc. (GTW); General Electric Co. (GE);
Halliburton Co. (HAL); Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ); Johnson & Johnson
(JNJ); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM); Kohl's Corp. (KSS); LSI Logic
Corp. (LSI); Micron Technology, Inc. (MU); Motorola, Inc. (MOT);
Noble Corp. (NE); Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY); Office Depot
Inc. (ODP); Pfizer Inc. (PFE); Phelps Dodge Corp. (PD); Pulte Homes,
Inc. (PHM); Qwest Communications International Inc. (Q);
Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB); Solectron Corp. (SLR); Sovereign Bancorp,
Inc. (SOV); Time Warner, Inc. (TWX); Valero Energy Corp. (VLO); and
Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the prior filings, Nasdaq notes that it planned to run
the pilot for a period of at least three months; however, Nasdaq states
that, because the authority for this proposal provided by the Nasdaq
Board of Directors ran only through December 31, 2005, Nasdaq needed to
obtain Board approval for a longer pilot. Having obtained such
approval, Nasdaq is now filing to extend the pilot through February 28,
2006.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The change proposed by this filing applies to NASD members
that use the Nasdaq Market Center and Brut; in SR-NASD-2005-155,
Nasdaq proposes to make the same change applicable to non-members
that use Brut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\10\ in
general, and with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in
that the proposed rule change, as amended, provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members
and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
NASD operates or controls. Nasdaq states that the proposed rule change,
as amended, will continue a pilot to make a liquidity provider credit
available to all market participants that opt to provide liquidity
through Nasdaq or Brut to support execution in any of forty stocks
included in the pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in any burden on competition that is 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

    Nasdaq states that written comments were neither solicited nor
received.

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

    The foregoing rule change, as amended, is subject to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
\13\ thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon Commission receipt of the filing. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \14\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
December 28, 2005, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is
December 30, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period
within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule
change, as amended, the Commission considers the period to commence
on December 30, 2005, the date on which the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-154 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-154. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2005-154 and should be submitted on or before
February 7, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-401 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60422-60423]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25675]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0543, FRL-9986-08-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Hazardous Remediation Waste
Management Requirements (HWIR) Contaminated Media (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Remediation Waste
Management Requirements (HWIR) Contaminated Media (EPA ICR No. 1775.08,
OMB Control No. 2050-0161), to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on August 3, 2018 during
a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days
for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 26,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0543, to (1) EPA, either online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requires EPA to establish a national regulatory program to ensure that
hazardous wastes are managed in a manner protective of human health and
the environment. Under this program, EPA regulates newly generated
hazardous wastes, as well as hazardous remediation wastes (i.e.,
hazardous

wastes managed during cleanup). Hazardous remediation waste management
sites must comply with all parts of 40 CFR part 264 except subparts B,
C, and D. In place of these requirements, they need to comply with
performance standards based on the general requirement goals in these
sections, which are codified at 40 CFR 264.1(j).
    Under Sec.  264.1(j), owners/operators of remediation waste
management sites must develop and maintain procedures to prevent
accidents. These procedures must address proper design, construction,
maintenance, and operation of hazardous remediation waste management
units at the site. In addition, owners/operators must develop and
maintain a contingency and emergency plan to control accidents that
occur. The plan must explain specifically how to treat, store, and
dispose of the hazardous remediation waste in question, and must be
implemented immediately whenever fire, explosion, or release of
hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that could threaten
human health or the environment. In addition, the Remedial Action Plan
streamlines the permitting process for remediation waste management
sites to allow cleanups to take place more quickly.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private sector, as well as State,
Local, or Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Sec.  3004(u)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 183.
    Frequency of response: One-time.
    Total estimated burden: 6,361 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $399,803 (per year), which includes $350,307
in annualized labor and $49,496 in annualized capital or operation &
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 592 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to a decrease in the number of
hazardous remediation waste management sites.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-25675 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5946-5948]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0835; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-1]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hollis, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Hollis,
OK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Hollis Municipal Airport,
for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-
0835; Docket No.16-ASW-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace at Hollis Municipal Airport,
Hollis, OK.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-0835/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-1.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Central Service Center, Operation Support Group,
10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface within an 6-mile radius of Hollis
Municipal Airport, Hollis, OK, to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Section 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Section 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet
or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Hollis, OK [New]

Hollis Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]42'19'' N., long. 099[deg]54'31'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Hollis Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 27, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-02034 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43864-43865]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2212-051]

Domtar Paper Company, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) and is
available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and water.
    b. Project No: 2212-051.
    c. Date Filed: July 20, 2018 and supplemented August 16, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Domtar Paper Company, LLC (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Rothschild Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Wisconsin River and Big Rib River, Marathon County,
Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Steve Lewens, Environmental Health & Safety
Manager, Domtar Paper Company, 200 North Grand Ave., Rothschild, WI
54474; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Andrea Claros at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2212-051.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to grant Granite Peak Corporation permission to install and
operate a water withdraw intake on the Big Rib River for snow-making
purposes. The intake is designed to withdraw up to 17.2 million gallons
per day, within the project boundary, however Granite Peak estimates
withdrawing a daily maximum of 12 million gallons per day during the
winter months, typically in November and December. Construction
activities within the project boundary would include installation of a
coffer dam, and installation of an intake pipe no further than five-
feet from the river bank.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS''; ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to the non-project use application. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 22, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18601 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32646-32650]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12968]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369, FRL-9816-9]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Methyl Bromide
Critical Use Exemption Applications for 2016

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of Applications and Information on
Alternatives.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting applications for the critical use exemption
from the phaseout of methyl bromide for 2016. Critical use exemptions
last only one year. All entities interested in obtaining a critical use
exemption for 2016 must provide EPA with technical and economic
information to support a ``critical use'' claim and must do so by the
deadline specified in this notice even if they have applied for an
exemption in previous years. Today's notice also invites interested
parties to provide EPA with new data on the technical and economic
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives.

DATES: Applications for the 2016 critical use exemption must be
submitted on or before August 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA encourages users to submit their applications
electronically to Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric Protection Division, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If the application is submitted electronically,
applicants must fax a signed copy of Worksheet 1 to<PHONE_NUMBER> by the
application deadline. Applications for the methyl bromide critical use
exemption can also be submitted by U.S. mail to: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Team, Mail Code 6205J,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier delivery
to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Attention Methyl Bromide Review
Team, 1310 L St. NW., Room 1047E, Washington DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Information: U.S. EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, 1-800-296-1996; also http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr.
    Technical Information: Bill Chism, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (7503P), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulatory Information: Jeremy Arling, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for
applications?
    A. Who can respond to this request for information?
    B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide
critical use exemption?
    C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use
exemption?
    D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous
year?
    E. What portions of the applications will be considered
confidential business information?
II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?
    A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical
use exemption?
    B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use
exemption?
    C. What is the timing for applications for the 2016 control
period?

I. What do I need to know to respond to this request for applications?

A. Who can respond to this request for information?

    Entities interested in obtaining a critical use exemption must
complete the application form available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. The application may be submitted by a consortium
representing multiple users who have similar circumstances or by
individual users. EPA encourages groups of users with similar
circumstances to submit a single application.
    While anyone interested in obtaining a critical use exemption may
apply, EPA notes that in January, 2013, the United States government
submitted its nomination for critical use exemption during 2015, and
that nomination included only three uses (strawberries, fresh dates and
dry cured ham). Since information about alternatives, economic impacts,
and other factors relevant to the critical use criteria change from
year to year, applicants must provide all of the necessary technical
and economic information, whether or not a use has been nominated for a
critical use exemption in the past.
    In addition to requesting information from applicants for the
critical use exemption, this solicitation for information provides an
opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on
methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical or economic feasibility
research).

B. How do I obtain an application form for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption?

    Application forms for the methyl bromide critical use exemption can
be obtained in PDF, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel formats at
EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html or at Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0369 at http://www.regulations.gov.

C. What must applicants address when applying for a critical use
exemption?

    To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide
meets the requirements of the critical use exemption, applicants must
demonstrate that there are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives available for that use. EPA's Web site contains a list of
available and potential alternatives at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/alts.html. Applicants must show that they are taking steps to minimize
their critical use of methyl bromide and any associated emissions. In
addition, applicants must describe research plans which includes the
pest(s), chemical(s), or management practice(s) they will be testing to
support their transition from methyl bromide.
    Below, EPA is providing information on how it evaluated specific
uses in considering nominations for critical uses for 2015, as well as
specific information needed for the U.S. to successfully defend its
nominations for critical uses.
Commodities Such as Dried Fruit and Nuts
    Data reviewed by EPA as part of the 2015 nomination process
indicate that sulfuryl fluoride is effective against key pests. The
industry has mostly converted to sulfuryl fluoride and no market
disruption has occurred. For this sector, rapid fumigation is not a
critical condition. Therefore, products can be treated with sulfuryl
fluoride or phosphine and be held for relatively long periods of time
without a significant economic impact. To support a nomination,
applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest
pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other
economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives.
Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl
fluoride, propylene oxide (PPO), phosphine, and controlled atmosphere/
temperature treatment system. Applicants should include the costs to
retrofit equipment or design and construct new fumigation chambers for
these alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants must
provide: The amount of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and
alternatives, which may include heat), price per pound of the fumigant
gas from the most recent use season, application rates, differences in
time required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours
and wages) associated with alternatives, the amount of commodity
treated with each fumigant/treatment and the value of the commodity
being treated/produced. Also provide information on changes in costs
for any other practices or equipment used (e.g. sanitation and IPM)
that are not needed when methyl bromide is used for fumigation. Include
information on the size of fumigation chambers where methyl bromide is
used, the percent of commodity fumigated under tarps, the length of the
harvest season, peak of the harvest season and duration, and volume of
commodity treated daily at the harvest peak.
    Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer
requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary
requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other
countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by
explanation of why the methyl bromide quarantine and preshipment (QPS)
exemption is not applicable for this purpose. Also include information
on what pest control practices organic producers are using for their
commodity.
Structures and Facilities (flour mills, rice mills, pet food)
    Published data reviewed by EPA during the 2015 nomination process
did not show a statistically significant difference in control
effectiveness between methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride or heat
treatments. The cost of alternatives is also generally less than cost
of methyl bromide except for heat alone. To support a nomination,
applicants must address potential economic losses due to pest
pressures, changes in quality, changes in timing, and any other
economic implications for producers when converting to alternatives.
Alternatives for which such information is needed are: Sulfuryl
fluoride, micro-sanitation, and heat. Applicants should include the
costs to retrofit equipment for these pest control methods. For the
economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price per
pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives) from
the most recent use season, application rates, differences in time
required for fumigation, differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and
wages) associated with alternatives, and value of the commodity being
treated/produced. List how many mills have been fumigated with methyl
bromide over the last three years; the rate, volume, and target CT of
methyl bromide at each location; volume of each facility; number of
fumigations per year; and date the facility was constructed.
    Where applicable, also provide examples of specific customer
requests regarding pest infestation and examples of any phytosanitary
requirements of foreign markets (e.g., import requirements of other
countries) that may necessitate use of methyl bromide accompanied by
explanation of why the QPS exemption is not applicable for this
purpose. Also include information on what pest control practices
organic producers are using for their facilities.
Dried Cured Pork
    Applicants must list how many facilities have been fumigated with
methyl bromide over the last three

years; the rate, volume, and target CT of methyl bromide at each
location; volume of each facility; number of fumigations per year; and
the materials from which the facility was constructed. It is also
important for this sector to specify research plans into alternatives
and alternative practices to support the transition from methyl
bromide.
Cucurbits, Eggplant, Pepper, and Tomato
    In reviewing data for the 2015 CUE nomination, EPA found that
although no single alternative is effective for all pest problems, a
review of multiple year data indicates that the alternatives in various
combinations provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus
chloropicrin. Several research studies show that the three way mixture
of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam sodium can effectively
suppress pathogens (P. capsici, F. oxysporum) and nematodes. To support
a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield,
quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: The
mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus
metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and any
fumigationless system (if data are available). Applications must
address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your
region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including
the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers
for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For
the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: Price
per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives)
from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop
being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages);
and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate
equipment associated with alternatives.
Strawberry Fruit
    Based on EPA's review of information as part of the 2015 nomination
process, EPA believes there will continue to be a reduced critical need
for methyl bromide in the near future as advances are made (1) In
safely applying 100% chloropicrin, (2) in strategies to improve
efficacy in applying 1,3-dichloropropene, and (3) in transitioning from
experimental to commercial use of non-chemical tools, such as steam,
anaerobic soil disinfestations, and substrate production. To support a
nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield,
quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the
mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus
metam (sodium or potassium), or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) in states
other than California, and any fumigationless system (if data are
available). Applications must address regulatory and economic
implications for growers and your region's production of these crops
using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and
the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season;
application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in
labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment
costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives.
Orchard Replant
    EPA's review of data in the 2015 nomination process indicated that
while no single alternative is effective for all pest problems,
numerous field trials indicate alternatives to methyl bromide are
effective. Therefore, EPA concluded that transitioning to the
alternatives was feasible without substantial losses. Registered
alternatives are available for individual-hole treatments and soil
preparation procedures are available to enable effective treatment with
alternatives even in soils with high moisture content. To support a
nomination, applicants must address potential changes to yield,
quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including: the
mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of
Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus
metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam.
Applications must address regulatory and economic implications for
growers and your region's production of these crops using these
alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the
differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season;
application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in
labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment
costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives.
Ornamentals
    In considering nominations for 2015, EPA found that while no single
alternative is effective for all pest problems, a review of multiple
year data indicates that the alternatives in various combinations
provide control equal or superior to methyl bromide plus chloropicrin.
Research demonstrates that 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin, the
three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropene plus chloropicrin plus metam
sodium, and dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin all show excellent
results. To support a nomination, applicants must address potential
changes to yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives,
including: the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the
University of Georgia three way mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus
chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or potassium), dimethyl disulfide
(DMDS), and steam. Applications must address regulatory and economic
implications for growers and your region's production of these crops
using these alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and
the differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season;
application rates; value of the crop being produced; differences in
labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any differences in equipment
costs or time needed to operate equipment associated with alternatives.
Nurseries
    In considering this sector in the 2015 nomination process, EPA
noted that a Special Local Need label allows Telone II to be used in
accordance with certification standards for propagative material.\1\ To
support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to
yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including:
the mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin, the University of
Georgia three way mixture

of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin plus metam (sodium or
potassium), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and steam. Applications must
address regulatory and economic implications for growers and your
region's production of these crops using these alternatives, including
the costs to retrofit equipment and the differential impact of buffers
for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin compared to the alternatives. For
the economic assessment applicants must provide the following: price
per pound of fumigant gas used (both methyl bromide and alternatives)
from the most recent use season; application rates; value of the crop
being produced; differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages);
and any differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate
equipment associated with alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA also noted that growers can use a combination of methyl
bromide for quarantine situations and 1,3-D plus chloropicrin for
non-quarantine situations to meet certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Golf Courses
    To date, EPA has not found that a significant market disruption
would occur in the golf industry in the absence of methyl bromide. To
support a nomination, applicants must address potential changes to
yield, quality, and timing when converting to alternatives, including:
Basamid, chloropicrin, 1,3-dichloropene, 1,3-dichloropene plus
chloropicrin, metam sodium, and steam. Applications must address
regulatory and economic implications for growers using these
alternatives, including the costs to retrofit equipment and the
differential impact of buffers for methyl bromide plus chloropicrin
compared to the alternatives. For the economic assessment applicants
must provide the following: price per pound of fumigant gas used (both
methyl bromide and alternatives) from the most recent use season;
application rates; economic impact for the golf course from a
transition to alternatives (e.g. downtime when resurfacing);
differences in labor inputs (i.e., hours and wages); and any
differences in equipment costs or time needed to operate equipment
associated with alternatives. Supporting evidence might be included
that would demonstrate that alternatives lead to more frequent
resurfacing and therefore, greater adverse economic impacts.

D. What if I applied for a critical use exemption in a previous year?

    Critical use exemptions are valid for only one year and do not
automatically renew. All users desiring to obtain an exemption for 2016
must apply to EPA even if they have applied for critical uses in prior
years. Because of the latest changes in registrations, costs, and
economic aspects for producing critical use crops and commodities,
applicants must fill out the application form completely.

E. What portions of the applications will be considered confidential
business information?

    You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or
all of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information,
at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed
legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as
``trade secret,'' ``proprietary,'' or ``company confidential.'' You
should clearly identify the allegedly confidential portions of
otherwise non-confidential documents, and you may submit them
separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If you
desire confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the
occurrence of a certain event, your notice should state that.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by
EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under
40 CFR part 2 subpart B; 41 FR 36752, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when EPA receives
it, EPA may make it available to the public without further notice.
    Do not include on the ``Worksheet 6: Application Summary'' page of
the application any information that you wish to claim as confidential
business information. Any information on Worksheet 6 shall not be
considered confidential and will not be treated as such by the Agency.
EPA will place a copy of Worksheet 6 in the public domain. Please note,
claiming business confidentiality may delay EPA's ability to review
your application.

II. What is the legal authority for the critical use exemption?

A. What is the Clean Air Act (CAA) authority for the critical use
exemption?

    In October 1998, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require EPA
to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the
provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer for industrialized countries and to allow EPA to provide a
critical use exemption. These amendments were codified in Section 604
of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7671c. Under EPA implementing
regulations, the production and consumption of methyl bromide was
phased out as of January 1, 2005. Section 604(d)(6), as added in 1998,
allows EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from
the phaseout for critical uses, to the extent consistent with the
Montreal Protocol. EPA has defined ``critical use'' at 40 CFR 82.3.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 82.4 prohibit the production and import
of methyl bromide in excess of the amount of unexpended critical use
allowances held by the producer or importer, unless authorized under a
separate exemption. Methyl bromide produced or imported by expending
critical use allowances may be used only for the appropriate category
of approved critical uses as listed in Appendix L to the regulations
(40 CFR 82.4(p)(2)). The use of methyl bromide that was produced or
imported through the expenditure of production or consumption
allowances prior to 2005, while not confined to critical uses under
EPA's phaseout regulations, are subject to the labeling restrictions
under FIFRA.

B. What is the Montreal Protocol authority for the critical use
exemption?

    The Montreal Protocol provides that the Parties may exempt ``the
level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses
agreed by them to be critical uses'' (Art. 2H para 5). The Parties to
the Protocol included this language in the treaty's methyl bromide
phaseout provisions in recognition that alternatives might not be
available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the
Parties to be ``critical uses.''
    In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed
to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a ``critical
use'' determination and an exemption from the production and
consumption phaseout:

    (a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ``critical''
only if the nominating Party determines that:
    (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of
availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a
significant market disruption; and
    (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible
alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are
acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are
suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.
    (b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide
for a critical use should be permitted only if:
    (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been
taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of
methyl bromide;
    (ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and
quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide,
also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for methyl
bromide;

    (iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being
made to evaluate, commercialize, and secure national regulatory
approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration
the circumstances of the particular nomination . . . Non-Article 5
Parties [e.g., developed countries, including the U.S.] must
demonstrate that research programs are in place to develop and
deploy alternatives and substitutes. . . .
    The term ``significant market disruption'' is left to the
discretion of each Party to the Protocol to interpret. EPA's
interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking
at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity,
evaluating potential losses at both an individual level and at an
aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative and
absolute terms. EPA refers readers to the preamble for the 2006 CUE
rule (71 FR 5989) as well as to the memo in the docket titled
``Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for
Methyl Bromide for the United States of America'' for further
elaboration.

C. What is the timing for applications for the 2015 control period?

    There is both a domestic and international component to the
critical use exemption process. The projected timeline for the process
for the 2016 critical use exemption is below. A more detailed schedule
is on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html.
    May 31, 2013: Solicit applications for the methyl bromide critical
use exemption for 2016.
    August 29, 2013: Deadline for submitting critical use exemption
applications to EPA.
    Fall 2013: U.S. Government (EPA, Department of State, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and other interested Federal agencies)
prepares U.S. Critical Use Nomination package.
    January 24, 2014: Deadline for U.S. Government to submit U.S.
nomination package to the Protocol Parties.
    Early 2014: Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) review the
nominations for critical use exemptions.
    Mid 2014: Parties consider TEAP/MBTOC recommendations.
    November 2014: Parties decide whether to authorize critical use
exemptions for methyl bromide for production and consumption in 2016.
    Mid 2015: EPA publishes proposed rule for allocating critical use
exemptions in the U.S. for 2016.
    Late 2015: EPA publishes final rule allocating critical use
exemptions in the U.S. for 2016.
    January 1, 2016: Critical use exemption permits the limited
production and import of methyl bromide for specified uses for the 2016
control period.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-12968 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53674-53675]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

* * * * *

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2396-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission,
LLC.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission,
LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: ACA Filing-2011 to be effective
10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2397-000.
    Applicants: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.402: Semi ACA Filing to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2398-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 154.402: ACA Change to Section 4 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2399-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company submits tariff filing per
154.402: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company 2011 ACA Filing to be effective
10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2400-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.501: Report of Refund Transco's GSS LSS Customers
Share of DTI Penalty Revenue 2011 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2401-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.402:
Equitrans, L.P. 2011 Annual Charge Adjustment Filing to be effective
10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2402-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Northern Border Pipeline Company submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Princeton Lateral Compliance to CP10-468 to be effective
12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110819-5010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 31, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2403-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: ACA 2011 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

* * * * *
    Docket Numbers: RP11-2183-001.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.203: RP11-2183 Compliance to be effective 4/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2092-002.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: Order 587-U Compliance Filing to be effective 8/16/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110819-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 31, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2396-001.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission,
LLC.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission,
LLC submits tariff filing per 154.205(b): Amended ACA Filing--2011 to
be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110819-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 31, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2387-001.
    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.
    Description: Sabine Pipe Line LLC submits tariff filing per
154.205(b): Sabine Pipe Line LLC Amendment to 2011 ACA Filing to be
effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2387-002.
    Applicants: Sabine Pipe Line LLC.
    Description: Sabine Pipe Line LLC submits tariff filing per
154.205(b): Sabine Pipe Line LLC 2011 ACA Filing--Amendment to be
effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110818-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-882-001.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company's Annual Gas Sales Report for
its Clay Basin Storage Reservoir for the 12-month period ending April
30, 2011.
    Filed Date: 08/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110817-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2378-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation submits tariff
filing per 154.205(b): Amendment--ACA Filing (RP11-2378) to be
effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/17/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110817-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 29, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: August 22, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21998 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Maximum Predicted HEM-3 Chronic Risks (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing) based on Revised WHAT IF

                                 Facility Name
                               Facility Location
                             Facility Designation
                                  Cancer MIR
                              Primary MIR Driver
NEIGA1210021
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Fairburn
Area Source
                                      400
                                      Cr
NEI8091
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain
Athens
Area Source
                                      200
                                      Cr
NEIFL1051050375
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Lakeland
Area Source
                                      200
                                      Cr
NEIIN641
Johns Manville
Richmond, IN
Area Source
                                      70
                                      Cr
NEI25015
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Santa Clara
Area Source
                                      50
                                 Formaldehyde
NEI8623
Knauf Insulation GmbH
Lanett
Area Source
                                      50
                                 Formaldehyde
NEI12758
Johns Manville
Mcpherson
Area Source
                                      30
                                      Cr
NEIMS2803300
Guardian Fiberglass Inc.
Mineral Wells
Area Source
                                      30
                                      Cr
NEI8099
Johns Manville
Winder
Area Source
                                      30
                                      Cr
NEI32453
Knauf Insulation GmbH
Shelbyville
Area Source
                                      30
                                      Cr
NEI21588
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain
Chowchilla
Area Source
                                      20
                                 Formaldehyde
NEI32855
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Kansas City
Area Source
                                      20
                               Cr 52%, Form. 39%
NEI34985
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Delmar
Area Source
                                      10
                                      Cr
NEI6410
Johns Manville
 Penbryn
Area Source
                                      10
                                      Cr
NEIMIB7205
Guardian Fiberglass Inc.
Albion
Area Source
                                      10
                                      Cr
NEIOHWF025
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Mt. Vernon
Area Source
                                      10
                                      Cr
NEI19980
Johns Manville
 Willows
Area Source
                                      10
                             Form. 60%/Arsenic 33%
NEI2CAT18625
Knauf Insulation GmbH
Shasta Lake California
Area Source
                                      10
                                 Formaldehyde
NEIAZT$12365
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Eloy
Area Source
                                       7
                                 Formaldehyde
NEI11393
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Newark
Major Source
                                      200
                                      Cr
NEI11431
Johns Manville
Defiance
Major Source
                                      40
                                      Cr
54003NEIWV0012
Guardian Fiberglass Inc.
Inwood
Major Source
                                      30
                                      Cr
NEI32853
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain
Kansas City
Major Source
                                      20
                                      Cr
NEI11202
Johns Manville
Cleburne
Major Source
                                      20
                                      Cr
NEI12037
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Waxahachie
Major Source
                                      20
                                      Cr
NEI42077
Owens Corning Insulating Systems,
Salt Lake City
Synthetic Minor
                                       5
                                      Cr
NEISCGFG001
Guardian Fiberglass Inc.
Winnsboro
Major Source
                                       2
                                      Cr
NEI2AZT18199
Guardian Fiberglass Inc.
Kingman
Synthetic Minor
                                       2
                                 Formaldehyde
NEIOH0950013
Johns Manville
Waterville
Not subject to subpart NNN
                                       7
                                      Cr

1 BOLD indicates a cancer risk great than 1 in a million or a noncancer HI greater than 1


[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67588-67589]
[DOCID:fr29no07-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0060; Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-1]

Proposed Establishment of Low Altitude Area Navigation Routes (T-
Routes); St. Louis, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish two low altitude Area
Navigation (RNAV) routes, designated T-251 and T-272, in the St. Louis,
MO, terminal area. T-routes are low altitude Air Traffic Service
routes, based on RNAV, for use by aircraft that have instrument flight
rules (IFR) approved Global Positioning System (GPS)/Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) equipment. The FAA is proposing this action to
enhance safety and improve the efficient use of the navigable airspace
in the St. Louis, MO, terminal area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-0060 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-1 at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2007-0060 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-0060 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-1.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://.

www.faa.gov, or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, Air Traffic Organization,
Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish two low altitude RNAV routes
in the St. Louis, MO, terminal area. The routes, designated as T-251
and T-272, would be depicted on the appropriate IFR En Route Low
Altitude charts. These T-routes are only intended for use by GPS/GNSS
equipped aircraft and are being proposed to enhance safety, and to
facilitate the more flexible and efficient use of the navigable
airspace for en route IFR operations transitioning through and around
the St. Louis Class B airspace area.
    Low altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA
Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007 and effective September 15, 2007,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The low altitude
RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes low altitude Area Navigation routes (T-routes) at St.
Louis, MO.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a, 311b, and 311k. This airspace action is
not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2006 and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011--Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-251 Farmington, MO to RIVRS, IL [New]

FARMINGTON, MO (FAM)........  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 37[deg]40[min]24[sec] N., long. 90[deg]14[min]03[sec]
                                                     W.)
FORISTELL, MO (FTZ).........  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 38[deg]41[min]40[sec] N., long. 90[deg]58[min]17[sec]
                                                     W.)
RIVRS, IL...................  INT.................  (Lat. 39[deg]25[min]21[sec] N., long. 90[deg]55[min]56[sec]
                                                     W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *

T-272 Hallsville, MO to Vandalia, IL [New]

HALLSVILLE, MO (HLV)........  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 39[deg]06[min]49[sec] N., long. 92[deg]07[min]42[sec]
                                                     W.)
VANDALIA, IL (VLA)..........  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 39[deg]05[min]37[sec] N., long. 89[deg]09[min]45[sec]
                                                     W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 23, 2007.
Paul Gallant,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
 [FR Doc. E7-23175 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P