Disapproval of Plan of Nevada; Clean Air Mercury Rule; Extension of Comment Period, 3900-3901 [E8-1117]

Download as PDF 3900 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules fees under section 201.3(c)(16), specifying that the basic fee for recordation of a notice of termination containing a single title is $95, and the fee for recordation of a notice of termination containing more than one title is an additional $25 per group of 10 titles. Mailing Address for Notices of Termination Finally, because notices of termination are time–sensitive, a delay in processing may have serious consequences. The proposed amendment would create a special post office box at the Copyright Office, from which notices of termination could more easily be sorted and routed for recordation. This revision would also delete the address for the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). All CARP proceedings were terminated in 2007 and the reference is no longer valid. 72 FR 45071 (August 10, 2007). Conclusion We hereby seek comment from the public as to the issues identified herein associated with certain requirements of the Copyright Office under Sections 201.1, 201.3, 201.4 and 201.10 of Chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 Copyright. Proposed Regulations For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office proposes to amend part 201 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 201–GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 2. Revise § 201.1(b)(2) to read as follows: § 201.1 Communication with the Copyright Office. * * * * (b) * * * (2) Notices of Termination. Notices of termination submitted for recordation should be mailed to Copyright Office, Notices of Termination, P.O. Box 71537, Washington, DC 20024–1537. ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS * § 201.3 [Amended] 3. Amend § 201.3(c)(16) by removing the phrase, ‘‘Recordation of document, including a Notice of Intention to Enforce (NIE)(single title),’’ and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘Recordation of document (single title), e.g. a Notice of VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 214001 Termination or a Notice of Intent to Enforce (NIE)’’. 4. Revise § 201.4(c)(3) to read as follows: Dated: January 14, 2008 Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. [FR Doc. E8–888 Filed 1–22–08; 8:45 am] § 201.4 Recordation of transfers and certain other documents. BILLING CODE 1410–30–S * * * * * (c) * * * (3) To be recordable, the document must be legible and capable of being imaged or otherwise reproduced in legible copies by the technology employed by the Office at the time of submission. * * * * * 5. Section 201.10(f) is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraph (f)(1)(iii); b. By redesignating paragraph (f)(4) as (f)(5); c. By adding paragraph (f)(4); d. By revising redesignated paragraph (f)(5) and e. By adding paragraph (f)(6). The revisions and additions to § 201.10 read as follows: § 201.10 Notices of termination of transfers and licenses. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) * * * (iii) The copy submitted for recordation must be legible per the requirements of § 201.4(c)(3) of this part. * * * * * (4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, the Copyright Office reserves the right to refuse recordation of a notice of termination if, in the judgment of the Copyright Office, such notice of termination is untimely. If a document is submitted as a notice of termination after the statutory deadline has expired, the Office will offer to record the document as a ‘‘document pertaining to copyright’’ pursuant to § 201.4(c)(3) of this part, but the Office will not index the document as a notice of termination. Whether a document so recorded is sufficient in any instance to effect termination as a matter of law shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. (5) The mere fact that a notice of termination has been recorded does not mean that it is legally sufficient. Recordation of a notice of termination by the Copyright Office is without prejudice to any party claiming that the legal and formal requirements for issuing a valid notice have not been met. (6) Notices of termination should be submitted to the address specified in § 201.1(b)(2) of this part. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA–R09–OAR–2007–1150; FRL–8518–9] Disapproval of Plan of Nevada; Clean Air Mercury Rule; Extension of Comment Period Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for action proposed on December 13, 2007 (72 FR 70812) concerning disapproval of the Nevada State Plan to address the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Any comments on this proposal must arrive by March 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2007–1150, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. DATES: E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM 23JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114, wong.lily@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 13, 2007, EPA proposed to disapprove the State Plan submitted by Nevada on November 15, 2006. The State Plan is intended to address the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule, promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA proposed to determine that the submitted Nevada State Plan does not meet certain Clean Air Mercury Rule requirements. The proposed action provided a 45day public comment period. In response to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, submitted by letter on January 3, 2008, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 45 days. Dated: January 9, 2008. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8–1117 Filed 1–22–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. 2007–0048] RIN 2127–AJ44, RIN 2127–AJ49 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems; Anthropomorphic Test Devices (Hybrid III 10-Year-Old and Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Dummies) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 214001 (NPRM) of August 31, 2005 that proposed to: (a) Expand the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, to restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds, and (b) require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with a crash test dummy representative of a 10-year-old child. In Part 1 of this SNPRM, NHTSA is proposing a test procedure for positioning the 10-year-old child dummy in a child restraint, to reduce variation due to chin-to-lower neck contact that was exhibited by the dummy in sled tests conducted subsequent to the NPRM. Comments are also requested in Part 1 on some other changes or clarifications to the NPRM, proposed in response to the public comments. In Part 2 of this SNPRM, we likewise propose to add a seating procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in a child restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about the variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have led NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in agency compliance tests. The seating procedure will address this variability issue and facilitate the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument. DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number above) by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: 202–493–2251. Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3901 Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http:// www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Dr. Roger Saul, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202–366–1740) (Fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202– 366–3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy I. Background II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM III. Agency Follow Up IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the HIII–10C Dummy a. Dummy Positioning Procedures b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII–6Year-Old Dummy c. Head Support Surface d. Housekeeping Measures Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy I. Background II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII–6C Dummy III. Testing Submission of Comments Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy I. Background On August 31, 2005, NHTSA issued an NPRM proposing: (a) To expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems, to restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds (lb); and (b) to require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with a Hybrid III crash test dummy representative of a 10-year-old child (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245). E:\FR\FM\23JAP1.SGM 23JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3900-3901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1117]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150; FRL-8518-9]


Disapproval of Plan of Nevada; Clean Air Mercury Rule; Extension 
of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for action proposed on 
December 13, 2007 (72 FR 70812) concerning disapproval of the Nevada 
State Plan to address the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule 
(CAMR).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by March 13, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-1150, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.

[[Page 3901]]

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents 
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114, wong.lily@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 13, 2007, EPA proposed to 
disapprove the State Plan submitted by Nevada on November 15, 2006. The 
State Plan is intended to address the requirements of EPA's Clean Air 
Mercury Rule, promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on 
June 9, 2006. EPA proposed to determine that the submitted Nevada State 
Plan does not meet certain Clean Air Mercury Rule requirements.
    The proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. In 
response to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator of the Nevada 
Division of Environmental Protection, submitted by letter on January 3, 
2008, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 45 days.

    Dated: January 9, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-1117 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P