[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31966-31967]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11378]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0422; FRL-9838-01-R7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Construction Permit Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP)
received on June 10, 2021. The submission revises Missouri's regulation
on construction permit exemptions. These revisions include updates to
incorporations by reference, remove unnecessary words, and make minor
clarifications and grammatical changes. These revisions do not impact
the stringency of the SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality. The
EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is being done in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2022-0422 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Olson, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7905; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
0422, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri SIP
received on June 10, 2021. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10
of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-6.061 ``Construction
Permit Exemptions''. The purpose of the state regulation is to list
specific construction or modification projects that are exempt from the
requirement to obtain permits to construct under 10 CSR 10-6.060.
Missouri made several revisions to the rule. These proposed revisions
to the rule update incorporations by references, remove unnecessary
words, and make minor clarifications and grammatical changes. EPA
proposes to find that these revisions meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not
adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as
well as EPA's analysis of the revisions are contained in the technical
support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from January 2, 2020,
to April 2, 2020, and held a public hearing on March 26, 2020. Missouri
received six comments from three sources during the comment period on
10 CSR 10-6.061. The EPA provided four comments. Missouri responded to
all comments and revised the rule based on public comment prior to
submitting to EPA, as noted in the State submission included in the
docket for this action.
    In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document (TSD) which is part of this docket, the revision meets
the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the
State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.061 ``Construction Permit
Exemptions.'' We are processing this as a proposed action because we
are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.061 as described
in Section II of this preamble and set forth below in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 20, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.061'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
    Missouri  citation              Title             effective       EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.061.................  Construction Permit          9/30/2020  [Date of publication    Sections (3)(A)2.D.
                            Exemptions.                             of the final rule in    and
                                                                    the Federal             (3)(A)2.E.(II)(c)
                                                                    Register], [Federal     are not SIP-
                                                                    Register citation of    approved.
                                                                    the final rule].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-11378 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 36909]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13446]

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

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: RP16-959-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: June 2016 Open
Season to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-970-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: PCB Adjustment
Period Extension through 2018 to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/26/16.
    Accession Number: 20160526-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-972-000.
    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Assignment
Update to be effective 6/26/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/26/16.
    Accession Number: 20160526-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-973-000.
    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Annual Cashout True-Up of Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
under RP16-973.
    Filed Date: 5/26/16.
    Accession Number: 20160526-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-974-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.601: Negotiated Rate
Agreement Update (APS June 2016) to be effective 6/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/26/16.
    Accession Number: 20160526-5267.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-975-000.
    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.312: Filing to Change
Rates to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/26/16.
    Accession Number: 20160526-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 27, 2016.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13446 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14903-14905]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07011]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82979; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendments to the Futures & Options Guaranty Fund Policy

April 2, 2018.
    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 March 19, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii) thereunder,\4\ so that the proposal was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
    \5\ Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined have
the meaning set forth in the ICE Clear Europe rulebook, which is
available at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to make certain amendments to its
policies relating to its Clearing House Futures & Options (``F&O'')
Initial Contribution to default resources.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is taking certain steps to increase its Clearing
House F&O Initial Contribution to default resources. The Clearing House
F&O Initial Contribution is used to cover losses arising from the
default of an F&O Clearing Member, and would be applied following the
use of the defaulter's own margin and guaranty fund contributions, and
prior to the application of guaranty fund contributions of non-
defaulting F&O Clearing Members. Currently, the Clearing House F&O
Initial Contribution is set in the F&O Guaranty Fund Policy (the
``Policy'') at a fixed level. ICE Clear Europe is proposing to modify
the Policy to remove the fixed level, and to provide that ICE Clear
Europe will notify Clearing Members by circular of its contribution
level in effect from time to time.
    In connection with these changes, ICE Clear Europe expects to
increase the Clearing House F&O Initial Contribution, and will notify
F&O Clearing Members of the exact amount by circular.
    The increased Clearing House F&O Initial Contribution reflects an
agreement among ICE Clear Europe and the exchanges for which it
currently clears F&O Contracts (ICE Futures Europe, ICE Futures U.S.,
Inc., ICE Endex Markets B.V. and ICE Endex Gas Spot Ltd.) that those
exchanges should contribute to the aggregate Clearing House F&O Initial
Contribution. (The exchange contributions will be in addition to ICE
Clear Europe's existing contribution.) In ICE Clear Europe's view, the
exchange contributions will enhance the risk practices of, and the risk
sharing between, the exchanges, the F&O Clearing Members, and ICE Clear
Europe itself, and create an incentive for exchanges to operate fair
and orderly markets and to build liquidity in stressed market
conditions. Under this approach, each exchange will make a contribution
pursuant to a formula based on the average F&O guaranty fund
contribution of F&O Clearing Members, subject to a minimum
contribution. The clearing services agreements between ICE Clear Europe
and each of the relevant exchanges will be amended to reflect this
requirement.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it, including the standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\7\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the amendments are designed to increase the
Clearing House's overall financial resources to cover losses from a
default of an F&O Clearing Member. In particular, the amendments
increase the amount of F&O default resources that will be available to
be applied after the exhaustion of the defaulting Clearing Member's
margin and guaranty fund contributions, and prior to the use of
guaranty fund contributions of non-defaulting Clearing Members.
Moreover, the amendments enhance the protection of guaranty fund
contributions made by non-defaulting F&O Clearing Members by reducing
the likelihood that ICE Clear Europe would need to use such
contributions in the event of an F&O Clearing Member default. The
amendments thus support the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of cleared transactions and the protection of Clearing
Members and other market participants. As a result, in ICE Clear
Europe's view, the amendments are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\9\ For similar reasons, ICE Clear
Europe believes that the amendments are also consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) \10\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted above, the amendments are designed to enhance
the overall risk management of the Clearing House by aligning the risk
objectives of the exchanges that submit F&O Contracts for clearing with
those of the Clearing House. In particular, the amendments, by
requiring a contribution from such exchanges, are intended to create an
incentive for those exchanges to operate fair and orderly markets and
to build liquidity in stressed market conditions. In ICE Clear Europe's
view, the amendments are thus consistent with the risk management
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).\12\ The amendments will apply to
all exchanges based on an objective formula for determining the
contribution, and accordingly are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among particular exchanges, or market participants using
such exchanges, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule change would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are
being proposed in order to enhance the Clearing House's overall F&O
default resources, and better align the risk objectives of the Clearing
House and the exchanges for which it clears. Although the amendments
will impose additional costs on such exchanges through the required
exchange contribution, ICE Clear Europe believes that such additional
costs appropriately reflect the risk brought to the Clearing House from
F&O Contracts traded on such exchanges. Such contributions would apply
to all exchanges that submit F&O contracts to the Clearing House, based
on an objective formula, and are not intended to disadvantage any
particular submitting exchange or trading venue. In addition, the
amendments will not directly impose additional costs on F&O Clearing
Members or market participants. Although exchanges could pass certain
additional costs to F&O Clearing Members or other market participants
through exchange fees, ICE Clear Europe does not believe this
possibility would adversely affect competition among Clearing Members

or other market participants, or otherwise affect the appropriateness
of the exchange contributions in light of the considerations set out
above. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments would also not affect
access to clearing or the market for cleared services generally. As a
result, ICE Clear Europe believes that any impact on competition is
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission or Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission or advance notice is consistent
with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-005. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change, security-based
swap submission or advance notice that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission or advance notice 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 website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings
will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-005 and should be
submitted on or before April 27, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07011 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by:	Commonwealth of Virginia

Date Submitted:	February 5, 2007

Subject:		Open Burning Seasonal Restrictions in Virginia’s VOC and NOx Emissions Control Areas

(Rule 4-40)

Completeness Review

Completed by:	 	Rose Quinto

Date Completed:	March 5, 2007

Administrative Materials  												ACCEPTABLE

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1. Letter dated February 5, 2007 from David K. Paylor, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, Region III.

 Yes

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2. Revision was adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on June 26, 2006, in accordance with the requirements of section 10.1-1308 of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law, and 40 CFR Part 51.  Effective date of the revision is October 18, 2006.

 Yes

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3. Revision adopted pursuant to section 10.1-1308 of the Virginia Air Pollution Control law.

 Yes

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, Existing Stationary Sources – Open Burning regulation adopted on June 26, 2006, published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on September 18, 2006, and effective on October 18, 2006.

Yes

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5.  A letter dated February 5, 2007, from David K. Paylor, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III.  Certification of Public Participation Activities.  Copy of public hearing notice run on November 28, 2005, Richmond Times-Dispatch.

 Yes

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6. Copy of hearing notice run on November 28, 2005, Richmond Times-Dispatch.

 Yes

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7.  Public hearing held on January 12, 2006; Certification of Public Participation Activities found in Enclosure 2 to the letter dated February 5, 2007 from David K. Paylor, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III.

 Yes

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8.  Record of Summary and Analysis of Testimony with the letter dated October February 5, 2007, from David K. Paylor, Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to Judith M. Katz, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III.  Comments were received on this particular revision.

 Yes

Technical Materials

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.

1.  VOC.

 Yes

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2.  Virginia’s VOC emissions control areas identified in 9 VAC 5-20-206.

 Yes

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.

3.  Not applicable.  The SIP revision establishes open burning seasonal restrictions in Virginia’s VOC emissions control areas.

 Yes

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.

4.  The SIP revision consists of regulation amendments to expand the geographic applicability of the control measure to implement open burning seasonal restrictions as part of plans to reduce and maintain VOC emissions in Virginia’s VOC emissions control areas.

Yes

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5.  No modeling demonstration was required to support the revision.

Yes

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6.  Not applicable.

Yes

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7.  Not applicable.

Yes

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

8.  Not applicable.

Yes

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.)

9.  No special justifications are required.

Yes

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10.  This is not a section 107 request.

Yes


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 135-138]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32991]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76781; File No. SR-OCC-2015-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
To Modify the Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Methodology by
Incorporating Variations in Implied Volatility

December 28, 2015.
    On October 5, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2015-016 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comments on the proposed rule change. On November 19, 2015,
OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On November
20, 2015, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Exchange
Act,\5\ the Commission extended the time period within which to
approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to January 17, 2016.\6\ This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. OCC also filed this proposal as an advance
notice pursuant to Section 802(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 and Rule 19b-4(n)(1) under the
Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76421 (November 10, 2015), 80 FR
71900 (November 17, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-804). The Commission did not
receive any comments on the advance notice.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76128 (October 13,
2015), 80 FR 63264 (October 19, 2015) (SR-OCC-2015-016)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, OCC makes technical corrections to
Exhibit 5. Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment
because it is a technical amendment that does not materially alter
the substance of the proposed rule change or raise any novel
regulatory issues.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76496 (November 20,
2015), 80 FR 74179 (November 27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Description

    As proposed by OCC,\7\ it is modifying its margin methodology by
more broadly incorporating variations in implied volatility within
OCC's System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations
(``STANS'').\8\ As explained below, OCC believes that expanding the use
of variations in implied volatility within STANS for substantially all
\9\ option contracts available to be cleared by OCC that have a
residual tenor \10\ of less than three years (``Shorter Tenor
Options'') will enhance OCC's ability to ensure that option prices and
the margin coverage related to such positions more appropriately
reflect possible future market value fluctuations and better protect
OCC in the event it must liquidate the portfolio of a suspended
clearing member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, 80 FR at 63264-67.
    \8\ This proposal did not propose any changes concerning
futures. According to OCC, OCC uses a different system to calculate
initial margin requirements for segregated futures accounts:
Standard Portfolio Analysis of Risk Margin Calculation System.
    \9\ According to OCC, it proposes to exclude: (i) Binary
options, (ii) options on energy futures, and (iii) options on U.S.
Treasury securities. OCC excluded them because: (i) They are new
products that were introduced as OCC was completing this proposal
and (ii) OCC did not believe that there was substantive risk if they
were excluded at this time because they only represent a de minimis
open interest. According to OCC, it plans to modify its margin
methodology to accommodate these new products.
    \10\ According to OCC, the ``tenor'' of an option is the amount
of time remaining to its expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implied Volatility in STANS Generally

    According to OCC, STANS is OCC's proprietary risk management system
that calculates clearing members' margin requirements. According to
OCC, the STANS methodology uses Monte Carlo simulations to forecast
price movement and correlations in determining a clearing member's
margin requirement. According to OCC, under STANS, the daily margin
calculation for each clearing member account is constructed to ensure
OCC maintains sufficient financial resources to liquidate a defaulting
member's positions, without loss, within the liquidation horizon of two
business days.
    As described by OCC, the STANS margin requirement for an account is
composed of two primary components: A base component and a stress test
component. According to OCC, the base component is obtained from a risk
measure of the expected margin shortfall for an account that results
under Monte Carlo price movement simulations. For the exposures that
are observed regarding the account, the base

component is established as the estimated average of potential losses
higher than the 99% VaR \11\ threshold. In addition, OCC augments the
base component using the stress test component. According to OCC, the
stress test component is obtained by considering increases in the
expected margin shortfall for an account that would occur due to: (i)
Market movements that are especially large and/or in which certain risk
factors would exhibit perfect or zero correlations rather than
correlations otherwise estimated using historical data or (ii) extreme
and adverse idiosyncratic movements for individual risk factors to
which the account is particularly exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``value at risk'' or ``VaR'' refers to a
statistical technique that, generally speaking, is used in risk
management to measure the potential risk of loss for a given set of
assets over a particular time horizon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to OCC, including variations in implied volatility within
STANS is intended to ensure that the anticipated cost of liquidating
each Shorter Tenor Option position in an account recognizes the
possibility that implied volatility could change during the two
business day liquidation time horizon in STANS and lead to
corresponding changes in the market prices of the options. According to
OCC, generally speaking, the implied volatility of an option is a
measure of the expected future volatility of the value of the option's
annualized standard deviation of the price of the underlying security,
index, or future at exercise, which is reflected in the current option
premium in the market. Using the Black-Scholes options pricing model,
the implied volatility is the standard deviation of the underlying
asset price necessary to arrive at the market price of an option of a
given strike, time to maturity, underlying asset price and given the
current risk-free rate. In effect, the implied volatility is
responsible for that portion of the premium that cannot be explained by
the then-current intrinsic value \12\ of the option, discounted to
reflect its time value. According to OCC, it currently incorporates
variations in implied volatility as risk factors for certain options
with residual tenors of at least three years (``Longer Tenor
Options'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ According to OCC, generally speaking, the intrinsic value
is the difference between the price of the underlying and the
exercise price of the option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implied Volatility for Shorter Tenor Options

    OCC is proposing certain modifications to STANS to more broadly
incorporate variations in implied volatility for Shorter Tenor Options.
Consistent with its approach for Longer Tenor Options, OCC will model a
volatility surface \13\ for Shorter Tenor Options by incorporating into
the econometric models underlying STANS certain risk factors regarding
a time series of proportional changes in implied volatilities for a
range of tenors and absolute deltas. Shorter Tenor Option volatility
points will be defined by three different tenors and three different
absolute deltas, which produce nine ``pivot points.'' In calculating
the implied volatility values for each pivot point, OCC will use the
same type of series-level pricing data set to create the nine pivot
points that it uses to create the pivot points used for Longer Tenor
Options, so that the nine pivot points will be the result of a
consolidation of the entire series-level dataset into a smaller and
more manageable set of pivot points before modeling the volatility
surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ According to OCC, the term ``volatility surface'' refers to
a three-dimensional graphed surface that represents the implied
volatility for possible tenors of the option and the implied
volatility of the option over those tenors for the possible levels
of ``moneyness'' of the option. According to OCC, the term
``moneyness'' refers to the relationship between the current market
price of the underlying interest and the exercise price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to OCC, it considered incorporating more than nine pivot
points but concluded that would not be appropriate for Shorter Tenor
Options because: (i) Back-testing results, from January 2008 to May
2013, revealed that using more pivot points did not produce more
meaningful information (i.e. more pivot points produced a comparable
number of under-margined instances) and (ii) given the large volume of
Shorter Tenor Options, using more pivot points could increase
computation time and, therefore, would impair OCC from making timely
calculations.
    Under OCC's model for Shorter Tenor Options, the volatility
surfaces will be defined using tenors of one month, three months, and
one year with absolute deltas, in each case, of 0.25, 0.5, and
0.75,\14\ thus resulting in the nine implied volatility pivot points.
OCC believes that it is appropriate to focus on pivot points
representing at- and near-the-money options because prices for those
options are more sensitive to variations in implied volatility over the
liquidation time horizon of two business days. According to OCC, four
factors explain 99% variance of implied volatility movements: (i) A
parallel shift of the entire surface; (ii) a slope or skewness with
respect to delta; (iii) a slope with respect to time to maturity; and
(iv) a convexity with respect to the time to maturity. According to
OCC, the nine correlated pivot points, arranged by delta and tenor,
give OCC the flexibility to capture these factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ According to OCC, given that premiums of deep-in-the-money
options (those with absolute deltas closer to 1.0) and deep-out-of-
the-money options (those with absolute deltas closer to 0) are
insensitive to changes in implied volatility, in each case
notwithstanding increases or decreases in implied volatility over
the two business day liquidation time horizon, those higher and
lower absolute deltas have not been selected as pivot points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to OCC, it first will use its econometric models to
jointly simulate changes to implied volatility at the nine pivot points
and changes to underlying prices.\15\ For each Shorter Tenor Option in
the account of a clearing member, changes in its implied volatility
then will be simulated according to the corresponding pivot point and
the price of the option will be computed to determine the amount of
profit or loss in the account under the particular STANS price
simulation. Additionally, as OCC does today, it will continue to use
simulated closing prices for the assets underlying options in the
account of a clearing member that are scheduled to expire within the
liquidation time horizon of two business days to compute the options'
intrinsic value and use those values to help calculate the profit or
loss in the account.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ According to OCC, STANS relies on 10,000 price simulation
scenarios that are based generally on a historical data period of
500 business days, which is updated monthly to keep model results
from becoming stale.
    \16\ For such Shorter Tenor Options that are scheduled to expire
on the open of the market rather than the close, OCC will use the
relevant opening price for the underlying assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of the Proposed Change and Implementation

    OCC believes that the proposed change will enhance OCC's ability to
ensure that STANS appropriately takes into account normal market
conditions that OCC may encounter in the event that, pursuant to OCC
Rule 1102, it suspends a defaulted clearing member and liquidates its
accounts.\17\ Accordingly, OCC believes that the change will promote
OCC's ability to ensure that margin assets are sufficient to liquidate
the accounts of a defaulted clearing member without incurring a loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ According to OCC, under authority in OCC Rules 1104 and
1106, OCC has authority to promptly liquidate margin assets and
options positions of a suspended clearing member in the most orderly
manner practicable, which might include, but would not be limited
to, a private auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC estimates that this change generally will increase margin
requirements overall, but will decrease

margin requirements for certain accounts with certain positions.
Specifically, OCC expects this change to increase aggregate margins by
about 9% ($1.5 billion). OCC also estimates the change will most
significantly affect customer accounts and least significantly affect
firm accounts, with the effect on market maker accounts falling in
between.
    According to OCC, it expects customer accounts to experience the
largest margin increases because positions considered under STANS for
customer accounts typically consist of more short than long options
positions, and therefore reflect a greater magnitude of directional
risk than other account types. According to OCC, positions considered
under STANS for customer accounts typically consist of more short than
long options positions to facilitate clearing members' compliance with
Commission requirements for the protection of certain customer property
under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3(b).\18\ Therefore, OCC segregates the
long option positions in the customer accounts of each clearing member
and does not assign the long option positions any value when
determining the margin for the customer account, resulting in higher
margin.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b).
    \19\ See OCC Rule 601(d)(1). According to OCC, pursuant to OCC
Rule 611, however, a clearing member, subject to certain conditions,
may instruct OCC to release segregated long option positions from
segregation. Long positions may be released, for example, if they
are part of a spread position. Once released from segregation, OCC
receives a lien on each unsegregated long securities option carried
in a customers' account and therefore OCC permits the unsegregated
long to offset corresponding short option positions in the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC expects margin requirements to decrease for accounts with
underlying exposure and implied volatility exposure in the same
direction, such as concentrated call positions, due to the negative
correlation typically observed between these two factors. According to
OCC, over the back-testing period, about 28% of the observations for
accounts on the days studied had lower margins under the proposed
methodology and the average reduction was about 2.7%. Parallel results
will be made available to the membership in the weeks ahead of
implementation.
    To help clearing members prepare for the proposed change, OCC has
provided clearing members with an information memorandum explaining the
proposal, including the planned timeline for its implementation, and
discussed with certain other clearinghouses the likely effects of the
change on OCC's cross-margin agreements with them. OCC also published
an information memorandum to notify clearing members of the submission
of this filing to the Commission. Subject to all necessary regulatory
approvals regarding the proposed change, OCC intends to begin making
parallel margin calculations with and without the changes in the margin
methodology. The commencement of the calculations will be announced by
an information memorandum, and OCC will provide the calculations to
clearing members each business day. OCC also will provide at least
thirty days prior notice to clearing members before implementing the
change. OCC believes that clearing members will have sufficient time
and data to plan for the potential increases in their respective margin
requirements.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \20\ directs the Commission
to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if
it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act \21\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2) under the Exchange Act.\22\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the
Exchange Act \23\ requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use
margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under
normal market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to
set margin requirements, among other things. Through this proposal, OCC
is modifying its margin methodology, which is designed to use margin
requirements to limit its credit exposures to clearing members holding
Shorter Tenor Options under normal market conditions. Specifically, OCC
is modifying its risk-based model, STANS, to set margin requirements in
a way that includes changes in implied volatility for Shorter Tenor
Options. With this change in place, STANS is now designed to recognize
a range of possible changes in implied volatility during the two
business day liquidation time horizon that could lead to corresponding
changes in the market prices of Shorter Tenor Options. Therefore, OCC's
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Exchange
Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By limiting its credit exposure in this way that is consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Exchange Act,\25\ OCC is less likely to be
subject to disruptions in its operations as a result of a participant
default, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\26\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act requires OCC to have rules designed to, among other
things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of OCC or for which it is
responsible.\27\ This change is also consistent with assuring the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of OCC. According to OCC, it has custody and control of margin
deposits it requires members to post to limit credit exposure to
members under normal market conditions. According to OCC, in the event
of a member default, that member's margin deposits are the first pool
of resources OCC would use to cover losses associated with the default.
With this change in place, STANS is now designed to recognize a range
of possible changes in implied volatility during the two business day
liquidation time horizon that could lead to corresponding changes in
the market prices of Shorter Tenor Options. This change is designed to
enable OCC to more accurately calculate the amount of margin a member
must post, and, therefore, make it less likely, in the event of a
member default, that OCC will need to access mutualized clearing fund
deposits to cover losses associated with such member's default, which
is consistent with assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of OCC or for which OCC is
responsible. Therefore, this change is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the

Exchange Act \29\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \30\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2015-016), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved as of the
date of this order or the date of a notice by the Commission
authorizing OCC to implement OCC's advance notice proposal that is
consistent with this proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2015-804), whichever
is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2015-32991 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44042-44045]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1662; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00689-T;
Amendment 39-22446; AD 2023-11-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by multiple reports of erratic electrical system status on the
push button annunciators (PBAs) and the engine instrument and crew
alerting system (EICAS) while on-ground and during flight. This AD
requires a records check and replacement of affected left-hand (LH)
direct current power center (DCPC) units. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 15, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 15,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1662; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; website
bombardier.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1662.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier,
Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2023 (88 FR 2029). The NPRM was prompted by AD
CF-2022-28, dated May 26, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is
the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI).
The MCAI states there have been multiple reports of erratic electrical
system status on the PBAs and the EICAS while on-ground and during
flight, and in several cases, leading to momentary loss of electrical
power and loss of flight displays following flight crew responses to
the erratic statuses. It was found that airplanes could experience
misleading electrical system status indications (PBA and EICAS) as a
result of contamination of electrical contacts in the LH DCPC internal
communication data bus. Those erratic indications could cause the crew
to turn off fully-operational electrical power sources, leading to
partial or complete loss of electrical power. Loss of electrical power
could result in the loss of flight displays and reduced controllability
of the airplane.
    The MCAI also states that Transport Canada previously issued AD CF-
2020-46, dated November 17, 2020 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2021-23-
14, Amendment 39-21812 (86 FR 68889, December 6, 2021)), which mandated
the use of revised Electrical Emergency and Non-Normal Procedures in
the airplane flight manual that directed crews not to turn off active
generators in the event of an erroneous electrical system status
indication. The MCAI advised that further corrective action is being
developed to introduce a design improvement to the DCPC that is
intended to protect the internal communication data bus from
contaminants, and that a time-limited maintenance check will also be
implemented.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a records check and
replacement

of affected LH DCPC units. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1662.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from a commenter, NetJets. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Request To Define Action for Certain LH DCPCs

    NetJets requested that the FAA specify what actions, if any, are
required for LH DCPC having less than 3,100 total flight cycles.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. No action has been identified for those
LH DCPC units having less than 3,100 total flight cycles as of the
effective date of this AD. Once action has been identified, the FAA
might consider rulemaking to require those actions. No changes have
been made to this AD in this regard.

Request for Additional Method of Compliance

    NetJets requested revising the proposed AD to allow use of certain
other service bulletins as a means of compliance with the proposed
requirements. NetJets suggested that accomplishment of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 350-24-005, dated November 29, 2022; or Safran Service
Bulletin 975GC02Y-24-020, dated August 5, 2022; could meet the intent
of the proposed requirements for certain LH DCPC part numbers (P/Ns).
NetJets pointed out that Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-005
references Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-004, dated April 9, 2021,
as a prior or concurrent service bulletin, and also provides
modification instructions that result in changing the part number of
the LH DCPC unit from P/N 975GC02Y07 to P/N 975GC02Y08. NetJets stated
that accomplishing those service bulletins could provide an acceptable
means of compliance and could exclude LH DCPC P/N 975GC02Y08 from the
proposed AD requirements.
    The FAA agrees to revise this AD. The FAA has also reviewed
Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-30, dated November 29, 2022, and
determined that service bulletin also has similar modification
instructions. The FAA has determined that Bombardier Service Bulletins
100-24-30 and 350-24-005, both dated November 29, 2022, could be used
as optional terminating action. The FAA has revised this AD to add
paragraph (j) to this AD.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletins 100-24-29 and 350-24-
004, both dated April 9, 2021. This service information specifies
procedures for a records check to determine the total flight hours and
replacement of affected LH DCPC units (P/Ns 975GC02Y04, 975GC0Y05,
975GC02Y06, or 975GC02Y07). These documents are distinct since they
apply to different airplane configurations.
    The FAA has also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletins 100-24-30
and 350-24-005, both dated November 29, 2022. This service information
specifies procedures for modifying LH DCPC units having P/N 975GC02Y07.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
configurations.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. The MCAI
states that further corrective action is being developed. Once this
action is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider
additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 315 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85          $26,775
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $85 per hour =     Up to $35,000.....  Up to $35,680.
 $680.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-11-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-22446; Docket No. FAA-
2022-1662; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00689-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 15, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 20003
through 20795 inclusive, 20797 through 20812 inclusive, 20814
through 20832 inclusive, and 20834 through 20836 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of erratic electrical
system status on the push button annunciators (PBAs) and the engine
instrument and crew alerting system (EICAS) while on-ground and
during flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to address erratic
indications, which could cause the flight crew to turn off fully-
operational electrical power sources, leading to partial or complete
loss of electrical power. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in loss of flight displays and reduced controllability
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Records Check

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, verify the
total flight hours of the left-hand (LH) direct current power center
(DCPC) unit since the date of manufacture by doing a records check
in accordance with paragraph 2.B.(1) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having serial number 20001 through 20500
inclusive, use Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-29, dated April 9,
2021.
    (2) For airplanes having serial number 20501 through 20999
inclusive, use Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-004, dated April
9, 2021.

(h) Replacement of the LH DCPC

    If, during the records check required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, the total flight hours since date of manufacture of the LH DCPC
unit is equal to or more than 3,100 total flight hours and the LH
DCPC has not been cleaned as specified in Safran Service Bulletin
975GC02Y-24-018 before the effective date of this AD: Within 19
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the LH DCPC unit
in accordance with paragraphs 2.B.(2) through 2.B.(5) and 2.C. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin
identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.

(i) Exception to the Service Information

    Although the note in paragraph 2.B.(4) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletins 100-24-29, and 350-24-
004, both dated April 9, 2021, specifies that actions will reset
``the unit total flight hours to zero at date of incorporation,''
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Optional Terminating Action

    Modification of a LH DCPC having part number (P/N) 975GC02Y07
into an LH DCPC having P/N 975GC02Y08, in accordance with Parts A
and B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin identified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this AD, is
considered terminating action for the requirements of paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD for that LH DCPC.
    (1) For airplanes having serial number 20001 through 20500
inclusive, use Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-30, dated November
29, 2022.
    (2) For airplanes having serial number 20501 through 20999
inclusive, use Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-005, dated
November 29, 2022.

(k) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, AIR-
730, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the International Validation Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If
mailing information, also submit information by email. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-28, dated May 26, 2022,
for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in
the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1662.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven
Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of

the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-29, dated April 9, 2021.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-24-30, dated November 29,
2022.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-004, dated April 9,
2021.
    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-24-005, dated November 29,
2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; website
bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 25, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14512 Filed 7-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12178-12179]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-1096]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade
Charlevoix, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the special local
regulation for the Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade in Michigan by
increasing the length of effective period of the existing special local
regulation to allow the Patrol Commander additional time to clear
vessels from anchoring in the regulated area during the event. In order
for the Coast Guard to clear vessel traffic to ensure safety in
sufficient time in advance of the event, the Coast Guard proposes to
change the effective period broadly to ``a date in late July.'' We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-1096 using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number (USCG-2019-1096) in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' See the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for further instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Blackledge, Waterways Management, Coast Guard Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade Charlevoix, MI. event
features a parade on the perimeter of Round Lake with a low fireworks
show in the middle of the lake. In order to ensure safety in sufficient
time of the event the Coast Guard Patrol Commander clears any vessel
traffic and any vessels anchored in Round Lake from the fireworks
fallout zone and the parade route.
    The legal basis for this proposed rulemaking is found in 33 U.S.C.
1233.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined
that the existing rule does not allow adequate time for the Patrol
Commander to ensure the safety of any anchored vessels in the regulated
area. This change allows the Coast Guard Patrol Commander the
additional time needed to contact vessel owners to relocate their
vessels out of the affected area.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day for the regulated area. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit through the regulated area which
will impact a small designated area within the COTP zone for a short
duration of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have

a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications
for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves creating a
regulated area for several days each year in a small area. Normally
such actions are categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. In Sec.  100.908, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  100.908   Charlevoix Venetian Night Boat Parade; Charlevoix, MI.

* * * * *
    (c) Effective date. This section is effective annually on a date in
late July.

    Dated: February 7, 2019.
P.S. Nelson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2019-06229 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P