[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58878-58880]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0786]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; San Diego Shark Fest Swim; San Diego Bay, San Diego,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone upon the
navigable waters of the San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA, in support of San
Diego Shark Fest Swim. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels,
and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on October
6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0786]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Bryan Gollogly, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the logistical details of the San
Diego Shark Fest Swim were not finalized nor presented to the Coast
Guard in enough time to draft and publish an NPRM. As such, the event
would occur before the rulemaking process was complete.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because it is impractical and
contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard did not have the
necessary event information in time to provide both a comment period
and allow for a 30 day delayed effective date. Immediate action is
required to ensure the safety zone is in place to protect participants,
crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of
the waterway during the event.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones
(33 U.S.C 1221 et seq.). The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary
safety zone on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay for the
October 6, 2013 San Diego Shark Fest Swim, consisting of 400 swimmers
swimming a predetermined course. The sponsor will provide 18 safety
vessels including boats, paddle boards, and PWCs for this event. This
safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants,
crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other users of the waterway.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 9:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on October 6, 2013. The limits of the
safety zone will be the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay bounded
by the following coordinates: 32[deg]42.17' N, 117[deg]09.83' W;
32[deg]41.66' N, 117[deg]09.88' W; along the shore line to
32[deg]41.29' N, 117[deg]09.77' W; 32[deg]41.50' N, 117[deg]09.73' W;
32[deg]42.05' N, 117[deg]09.68' W; along the shore line to
32[deg]42.17' N, 117[deg]09.83' W.
    This safety zone is necessary to ensure unauthorized personnel and
vessels remain safe by keeping clear during the San Diego Shark Fest
Swim. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
    Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Coast
Guard District Eleven Local Notice to Mariners information on the event
and associated safety zone. Immediately before and during the swim
event, Coast Guard Sector San Diego Joint Harbor Operations Center will
issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners on the location and enforcement of
the safety zone.
    Vessels will be able to transit the surrounding area and may be
authorized to transit through the safety zone with the permission of
the Captain of the Port of the designated representative. Before
activating the zones, the Coast Guard will notify mariners by
appropriate means including but not limited to Local Notice to Mariners
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is
based on the size, duration and location of the safety zone. Commercial
vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone. Recreational vessels
may be allowed to transit through the designated safety zone during the
specified times if they request and obtain authorization from the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Additionally,
before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local
Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
    (1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the aforementioned portion of the San Diego Bay
from October 6, 2013, from 9:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.
    (2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone will only be in effect for one hour in the morning when
vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic can transit safely around the
zone when authorized.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-595 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-595  Safety Zone; San Diego Shark Fest Swim; San Diego
Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will be the navigable
waters of the San Diego Bay bounded by the following coordinates:
32[deg]42.17' N, 117[deg]09.83' W; 32[deg]41.66' N, 117[deg]09.88' W;
along the shore line to 32[deg]41.29' N, 117[deg]09.77' W;
32[deg]41.50' N, 117[deg]09.73' W; 32[deg]42.05' N, 117[deg]09.68' W;
along the shore line to 32[deg]42.17' N, 117[deg]09.83' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 9:15
a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on October 6, 2013. If the event concludes prior to
the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) Entry into, transit through, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San
Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: September 6, 2013.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2013-23264 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17571-17573]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0012]

Modification to the List of Appropriate NRTL Program Test
Standards and the Scopes of Recognition of Several NRTLs

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of final decisions.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to: (1)
Delete a test standard from the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test
standards; and (2) update the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs.

DATES: OSHA's final decisions are effective on April 20, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. OSHA's web page includes information about the
NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The NRTL Program recognizes organizations that provide product
safety testing and certification services to manufacturers. These
organizations perform testing and certification, for purposes of the
Program, to U.S. consensus-based product safety test standards. The
products covered by the Program consist of those items for which OSHA
safety standards require ``certification'' by a NRTL. The requirements
affect electrical products and 38 other types of products. OSHA does
not develop or issue these test standards, but generally relies on
standards development organizations (SDOs) which develop and maintain
the standards using a method that provides input and consideration of
views of industry groups, experts, users, consumers, governmental
authorities, and others having broad experience in the safety field
involved.

Removal of Test Standards From the NRTL List of Appropriate Test
Standards

    OSHA may propose to remove a test standard from the NRTL list of
appropriate test standards based on an internal review in which Program
staff review the NRTL list of appropriate test standards to determine
if the test

standard conforms to the definition of appropriate test standard
defined in the Programs regulations and policy. There are several
reasons for removing a test standard based on this review. First, a
document that provides the methodology for a single test is a test
method rather than an appropriate test standard. A test standard must
specify the safety requirements for a specific type of product(s) (29
CFR 1910.7(c)). A test method, however, is a ``specified technical
procedure for performing a test'' (CPL 1-0.3, App. B). As such, a test
method is not an appropriate test standard. While a NRTL may use a test
method to determine if certain safety requirements are met, a test
method is not itself a safety requirement for a specific product
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OSHA notes that some types of devices covered by these
documents, such as capacitors and transformers, may be end-use
products themselves, and tested under other test standards
applicable to such products. For example, the following test
standard covers transformers that are end-use products: UL 1562
Standard for Transformers, Distribution, Dry-Type--Over 600 Volts.
OSHA is not proposing to delete such test standards from NRTLs'
scopes of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, a document that focuses primarily on usage, installation,
or maintenance requirements would also not be considered an appropriate
test standard (CPL 1-0.3, App. D.IV.B). In some cases, however, a
document may also provide safety test specifications in addition to
usage, installation, and maintenance requirements. In such cases, the
document would be retained as an appropriate test standard based on the
safety test specifications.
    Finally, a document may not be considered an appropriate test
standard if the document covers products for which OSHA does not
require testing and certification (CPL 1-0.3, App. D.IV.A).
    Similarly, a document that covers electrical product components
would not be considered an appropriate test standard. These documents
apply to types of components that have limitation(s) or condition(s) on
their use, in that they are not appropriate for use as end-use
products. These documents also specify that these types of components
are for use only as part of an end-use product. NRTLs, however,
evaluate such components only in the context of evaluating whether end-
use products requiring NRTL approval are safe for use in the workplace.
Testing such components alone would not indicate that the end-use
products containing the components are safe for use. Accordingly, as a
matter of policy, OSHA considers that documents covering such
components are not appropriate test standards under the NRTL Program.
OSHA notes, however, that it is not proposing to delete from NRTLs'
scopes of recognition any test standards covering end-use products that
contain such components.\1\

II. Final Decision To Delete Test Standards From the NRTL Program's
List of Appropriate Test Standards

    In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to delete one
test standard from the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test
standards.
    Table 1 lists the test standard that OSHA will delete from the NRTL
Program's list of appropriate test standards, as well as an abbreviated
rationale for OSHA's actions. For a full discussion of the rationale,
see Section I of this notice.

   Table 1--Test Standard OSHA Is Deleting From NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
    Deleted test standard      Reason for deletion     standard(s) (if
                                                         applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 96--Lightning Protection   Standard does not     N/A.
 Components.                   include products
                               required to be
                               certified by NRTLs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Decision To Modify Affected NRTLs' Scopes of Recognition

    In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to update the
scopes of recognition of several NRTLs. The tables in this section
(Table 2 thru Table 4) list, for each affected NRTL, the test standard
that OSHA is deleting from the scope of recognition of the NRTL.

Table 2--Test Standard OSHA Is Deleting From the Scope of Recognition of
                     Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
    Deleted test standard      Reason for deletion     standard(s) (if
                                                         applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 96--Lightning Protection   Standard does not     NONE.
 Components.                   include products
                               required to be
                               certified by NRTLs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Test Standard OSHA Is Deleting From the Scope of Recognition of
                CSA Group Testing and Certification Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
    Deleted test standard      Reason for deletion     standard(s) (if
                                                         applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 96--Lightning Protection   Standard does not     NONE.
 Components.                   include products
                               required to be
                               certified by NRTLs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4--Test Standard OSHA Is Deleting From the Scope of Recognition of
                   Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
    Deleted test standard      Reason for deletion     standard(s) (if
                                                         applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 96--Lightning Protection   Standard does not     NONE.
 Components.                   include products
                               required to be
                               certified by NRTLs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA will incorporate into its informational web pages the
modifications OSHA is making to each NRTL's scope of recognition. These
web pages detail the scope of recognition for each NRTL, including the
test standards the NRTL may use to test and certify products under
OSHA's NRTL Program. OSHA also will add, to its ``Current List of
Removed Test Standards'' web page, this test standard that OSHA no
longer recognizes or permits under the NRTL Program. Access to these
web pages is available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby modifies
the NRTL List of Appropriate Test Standards and associated modification
to the scope of recognition for the impacted NRTLs specified above.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 16, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-08255 Filed 4-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14909-14911]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0079; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class B Airspace Description; Houston, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the description of the Houston, TX, Class B
airspace area by changing the airport reference for describing the
William P. Hobby Airport in the Class B airspace header from
``Secondary Airport'' to ``Primary Airport.'' This change is editorial
only and does not alter the

current charted boundaries or altitudes or ATC procedures for the
Houston Class B airspace area.

DATES: Effective date: April 8, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Mission Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 1973, the FAA issued a final rule (38 FR 31286, November 13,
1973) which established the Houston Terminal Control Area (TCA), with
an effective date of March 28, 1974. The Houston TCA listed the Houston
Intercontinental Airport (later renamed the George Bush
Intercontinental Airport) as the primary airport. In 1987, to further
reduce the risk of midair collision in the Houston terminal areas and
promote the efficient control of air traffic, the FAA issued a final
rule (52 FR 1418, January 13, 1987) which established the William P.
Hobby Airport, Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) next to and under the
existing Houston TCA airspace. Then, in 1992, to better accommodate
current traffic flows and provide a greater degree of safety in known
areas of congestion involving controlled IFR and uncontrolled VFR
operations, the FAA issued a final rule (57 FR 30818, July 10, 1992)
and a final rule; correction (57 FR 40095, September 2, 1992) which
amended the Houston TCA configuration, listed two primary airports
(Houston Intercontinental Airport and William P. Hobby Airport) in the
Houston TCA description, and rescinded the William P. Hobby Airport
ARSA concurrently. As a result of the Airspace Reclassification final
rule (56 FR 65638, December 17, 1991), which became effective on
September 16, 1993, the term ``terminal control area'' was replaced by
``Class B airspace area.''
    In 1998, the FAA issued a final rule (63 FR 4162, January 28, 1998)
further amending the Houston Class B airspace area to enhance safety,
reduce the potential for midair collision, and better manage the air
traffic operations into, out of, and through Houston Class B airspace.
However, the airport reference for describing William P. Hobby Airport
in the Class B airspace header was inadvertently changed from ``Primary
Airport'' to ``Secondary Airport.'' The unintended consequence of this
inadvertent change has led to questions and concerns regarding the 30-
nautical mile (NM) Mode C veil that is charted around the Houston
terminal airspace area, as well as why William P. Hobby Airport is
listed as a secondary airport and what that means. The charted
depiction of the Mode C veil surrounding the George Bush
Intercontinental Airport and William P. Hobby Airport is correct with
no change to the existing charted boundaries. Additionally, the FAA
does not define what a secondary airport is, nor is that description
used to identify airports in any other Class B or Class C airspace
areas.
    The FAA is changing the airport reference for William P. Hobby
Airport in the Houston Class B airspace header to ``Primary Airport,''
reflecting the FAA's original intent for the Houston Class B airspace
area to encompass two primary airports, George Bush Intercontinental
Airport and William P. Hobby Airport, as specified in the final rule
(57 FR 30818, July 10, 1992) and final rule; correction (57 FR 40095,
September 2, 1992). Additionally, the FAA plans to add the William P.
Hobby Airport to the list of airports identified in Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91, Appendix D, Section 1, in a
separate rulemaking action.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by editing the Houston, TX, Class B airspace description
changing the airport reference for William P. Hobby Airport listed in
the header from ``Secondary Airport'' to ``Primary Airport.'' This
editorial change does not alter the currently charted boundaries or
altitudes or ATC procedures for the Houston Class B airspace area. The
FAA is taking this action to correctly describe the primary airports
listed in the Houston Class B airspace area, resolve issues associated
with William P. Hobby Airport having been described as a ``Secondary
Airport,'' and reaffirms the currently charted boundary of the Mode C
veil around the Houston terminal airspace area is correct, as
originally intended by the FAA.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    Because the amendment does not affect the boundaries, designated
altitudes, or activities conducted within the Class B airspace area,
Houston, TX, I find that notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it makes editorial corrections to an existing Class B airspace
description to maintain accuracy.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9W,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 8, 2012, and
effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace

* * * * *

ASW TX B Houston, TX [Amended]

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 29[deg]59[min]04[sec] N., long. 95[deg]20[min]29[sec] W.)
William P. Hobby Airport (HOU) (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 29[deg]38[min]44[sec] N., long. 95[deg]16[min]44[sec] W.)
Ellington Field (EFD)
    (Lat. 29[deg]36[min]26[sec] N., long. 95[deg]09[min]32[sec] W.)
Humble VORTAC (IAH)
    (Lat. 29[deg]57[min]25[sec] N., long. 95[deg]20[min]45[sec] W.)
Point of Origin
    (Lat. 29[deg]39[min]01[sec] N., long. 95[deg]16[min]45[sec] W.)

Boundaries

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-04891 Filed 3-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


ÿWPCv
ûÿ2xB(J¬rZ
|xCourier New  (TT)Times New Roman  (TT)ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@ôCô\	 PŽ	6QôPûÿ2|?ª‹étzÙÿôéÞphoenixÙÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñ                                                                                ERGERGÿÔ
"ÿûÿ2°º®ÄhÀ,ÄìDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11Ñ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñendnote textendnote text;1ÐÐÑ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñendnote referenceendnote reference44Ñ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÃÃÄÄÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñfootnote textfootnote text;1ÐÐÑ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñûÿ2üÀâ
¢
À
Þ
footnote referencefootnote reference44Ñ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÃÃÄÄÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñtoc 1toc 1èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐtoc 2toc 2èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°`	(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°`	(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐtoc 3toc 3èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°`	¸(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°`	¸(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐûÿ2þ
.

L
jvˆtoc 4toc 4	èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°¸(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°¸(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐtoc 5toc 5
èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°h(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°h(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐtoc 6toc 6èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ °°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐtoc 7toc 7
ÐÐÓÓÓÓûÿ2¨

0
N
l
Štoc 8toc 8
èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ °°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐtoc 9toc 9èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ`X°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐindex 1index 1èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°`	(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°`	(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐindex 2index 2èÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°`	(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°`	(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐûÿ2
Ú	Äø
º¼toa headingtoa headingèÞÐÐÐÐX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐÓÓÓÓÐÐ°(#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿX°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°°ÐÐcaptioncaption;1ÐÐÑ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#Ñ_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11Ñ#Xxþ6X@ÉDQX@#ÑÓÓÓÓÑ#ôdþ6X@ÉDQô@#ÑÐÐÓÓ
                      "Ensele, Richard"
                      <Richard.Ensele@m        To:       Carey Johnston/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
                      ms.gov>                  cc:       "Levine, Joseph"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                "Cimato, James"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Danenberger,
                      03/30/2001 10:40          Elmer"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                      AM                       Subject:  EPA Data Needs to Help EPA Assess section 316(b)
                                                Comments related     to MODUs

Carey,

Mr. Satterlee (Offshore Operator's Committee) provided EPA with the
correct
number of major platforms in water 0 to 400 meters deep (1,938) and in
water
over 400 meters (14).  We have no exact numbers for those equipped with
cooling water intake structures, but we agree with his estimates.  MMS
does
not specifically consider CWI structures in any analyses during the
approval
process for a plan of exploration or development.  The CWI structure is
considered for its effects on the structural integrity of the overall
structure (platform) during the platform design and verification
process.
If you have any other questions, please call or email.

                                                             Richard
Ensele
                                                             (703)
787-1583


[Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14269]
[DOCID:fr27mr07-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-352-000]

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C; Notice of Proposed Changes in Ferc Gas
Tariff

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 15, 2007, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C
(Guardian) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become
effective on April 15, 2007:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 6
Third Revised Sheet No. 75
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 103

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5521 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 82)]
[Notices]
[Page 25170]
[DOCID:fr28ap06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ES06-39-000]

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation ; Notice of Filing

April 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 20, 2006, Pinnacle West Capital
Corporation tendered for filing an application for authorization
pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act to issue and sell
equity securities and long-term and short-term debt securities during
the period of May 3, 2006, through June 30, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6393 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71117]
[DOCID:fr25no05-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR06-2-000]

Lee 8 Storage Partnership; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

November 18, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 15, 2005, Lee 8 Storage Partnership
(Lee 8) filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to section
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations. Lee 8 proposes system-
wide maximum rates of $3.28 per Dt of deliverability and $0.0328 per Dt
of capacity. In addition, Lee 8 states that it will charge 0.37 percent
of the injection volumes and 0.37 percent of the withdrawal volumes as
an allowance for compressor fuel and lost-and-unaccounted-for gas on
Lee 8's system.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 9, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6501 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69484-69486]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28443]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63255; File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-025; SR-BX-2010-66; SR-
CBOE-2010-087; SR-CHX-2010-22; SR-FINRA-2010-049; SR-NASDAQ-2010-115;
SR-NSX-2010-12; SR-NYSE-2010-69; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-96; SR-NYSEArca-2010-
83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; NASDAQ OMX
BX, Inc.; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; The Chicago
Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.;
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York
Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Amex LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To Enhance the Quotation Standards for Market Makers

November 5, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On September 17, 2010, each of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''),
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''),
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''); NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex''); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA,'' and together with BATS,
BX, CBOE, CHX, Nasdaq, NYSE, NSX, NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca, the
``SROs'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed
rule changes to amend certain of their respective rules to enhance
minimum quoting standards for market makers registered with the
exchange or, in the case of FINRA, market makers that quote on the
Alternative Display Facility (``ADF''). The purpose of these rule
changes is to require equity market makers to post continuous two-sided
quotations within a designated percentage of the inside market to
eliminate market maker ``stub quotes,'' that are so far away from the
prevailing market that they are not intended to be executed (such as an
order to buy at a penny or sell at $100,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 24 and September 27, 2010.\3\ In addition, each
of the SROs filed an Amendment No. 1 to their respective proposed rule
changes.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule
changes. This order approves the proposed rule changes on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62945 (September
20, 2010), 75 FR 58460 (September 24, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-025);
62954 (September 20, 2010), 75 FR 59305 (September 27, 2010) (SR-BX-
2010-66); 62951 (September 20, 2010), 75 FR 59309 (September 27,
2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-087); 62949 (September 20, 2010), 75 FR 59315
(September 27, 2010) (SR-CHX-2010-22); 62953 (September 20, 2010),
75 FR 59300 (September 27, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-049); 62950
(September 20, 2010), 75 FR 59311 (September 27, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-115); 62952 (September 20, 2010), 75 FR 59316 (September 27,
2010) (SR-NSX-2010-12); 62948 (September 20, 2010), 75 FR 58455
(September 24, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-69); 62947 (September 20, 2010),
75 FR 58453 (September 24, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-96); 62946
(September 20, 2010), 75 FR 58462 (September 24, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-
2010-83).
    \4\ The SROs filed their respective Amendments No. 1 on November
4, 2010. Each of the Amendments No. 1 modifies the proposals so that
a market maker is not expected to enter a quote based on the prior
day's last sale at the commencement of regular trading hours if
there is no National Best Bid (``NBB'') or National Best Offer
(``NBO''). As amended, in such a circumstance, the quoting
obligation would commence as soon as there has been a regular-way
transaction on the primary listing market in the security, as
reported by the responsible single plan processor. In addition, the
Amendment modifies the proposals so that a market maker's quoting
obligations shall be suspended during a trading halt, suspension or
pause, and shall not re-commence until after the first regular-way
transaction on the primary listing market following that halt,
suspension or pause, as reported by the responsible single plan
processor. Finally, so that the markets may coordinate
implementation upon approval of the proposed rule changes, in
Amendment No. 1 the SROs stated that the planned implementation date
for the proposed rule changes would be December 6, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposals

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption.\5\ Among other things, the prices of a large number of
individual securities suddenly declined by significant amounts in a
very short time period, before suddenly reversing to prices consistent
with their pre-decline levels. This severe price volatility led to a
large number of trades being executed at temporarily depressed prices,
including many that were more than 60% away from pre-decline prices and
subsequently broken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in the report
of the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'')
and the Commission, titled Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC
to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues,
``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,'' dated
September 30, 2010 (``May 6 Staff Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the May 6 Staff Report, executions against stub quotes
represented a significant proportion of broken trades on May 6. To
address this aspect of the events of May 6, in coordination with the
Commission, the SROs filed proposals to address stub quotes by
introducing minimum quoting standards for market makers.\6\ The
proposals require market makers to maintain continuous two-sided
quotations throughout the trading day \7\ that are within a certain
percentage band of the national best bid and offer (``NBBO''). These
requirements apply to all NMS stocks \8\ during normal market hours.
For stocks subject to the individual stock circuit breaker pilot
program (i.e., stocks that are included in

the S&P 500, stocks that are included in the Russell 1000, and certain
exchange-traded products),\9\ market makers must enter quotes that are
not more than 8% away from the NBBO. A quote that is entered at or
within 8% away from the NBBO is allowed to drift a certain additional
amount away from the NBBO before it must be adjusted by the market
maker. However, if the NBBO moves to a point such that the quote is
9.5% away from the NBBO, that quote must be adjusted so that it is no
further than 8% away from the NBBO. During times in which a single-
stock circuit breaker is not applicable (i.e., before 9:45 a.m. and
after 3:35 p.m.), market makers for such securities must maintain a
quote no further than 20% away from the NBBO. Similar to the
requirements when the single-stock circuit breakers are in effect, a
market maker's quote may drift an additional 1.5% away from the NBBO
without adjustment (i.e., until it is 21.5% away from the NBBO), at
which point it would need to be adjusted to a quote no further than 20%
away from the NBBO. In the absence of an NBBO, the same percentages
apply, but the market maker must use the consolidated last sale instead
of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 3.
    \7\ As noted, Amendment No. 1 modifies the proposals so that the
quoting obligation would commence as soon as there has been a
regular-way transaction on the primary listing market in the
security, as reported by the responsible single plan processor. The
Amendment also modifies that the market maker's quoting obligations
shall be suspended during a trading halt, suspension or pause, and
shall not re-commence until the first-regular way print on the
primary listing market following that halt, suspension or pause, as
reported by the responsible single plan processor. See supra note 4.
    \8\ See 17 CFR 242.600 (defining NMS stock as ``any NMS security
other than an option'' and NMS security as ``any security or class
of securities for which transaction reports are collected,
processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction
reporting plan, or an effective national market system plan for
reporting transactions in listed options'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62283 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September 16, 2010); 62884 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For securities that are not subject to the single-stock circuit
breakers, market makers must maintain quotes that are no more than 30%
away from the NBBO. Like securities subject to the single-stock circuit
breakers, if the NBBO moves to a point such that the quote is 31.5%
away from the NBBO, the quote must be adjusted to a quote no further
than 30% away from the NBBO.
    Nothing in the proposals precludes a market maker from voluntarily
quoting at price levels that are closer to the NBBO than required under
the proposals.
    The planned implementation date for the proposed rule changes is
December 6, 2010.
    As part of their rule proposals, certain SROs proposed additional
amendments to conform their rules to those of the other SROs with
respect to these market maker obligations. For example, FINRA proposed
to amend its rule to explicitly state that the duties of a market maker
include assisting in the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, while
NYSE and NYSE Amex proposed to amend their respective rules to
explicitly state that the duties of a market maker include maintaining
a continuous two-sided quote with a displayed size of at least one
round lot.
    In addition, BATS, BX and Nasdaq proposed functionalities to
automatically update market makers' quotes on their exchanges. Under
the BATS proposal, such functionality would be optional. Upon the
request of a market maker, the BATS system would automatically enter
and adjust quotes in accordance with the proposed quotation
requirements. If a market maker cancelled the quotations entered by
BATS through this functionality, the market maker would remain
responsible for complying with the minimum quotation requirements
imposed by the new rule.
    For both BX and Nasdaq, the exchange would automatically create a
quote to comply with the proposed quoting requirements for each issue
in which a market maker is registered. BX and Nasdaq would adjust one
of these automated quotations when it drifts to within 4% of the NBBO
(or, if greater, one-quarter of the applicable percentage necessary to
trigger an individual stock trading pause), or if the quote drifts to
within the applicable percentage necessary to trigger an individual
stock trading pause less 0.5%. If this occurs, BX or Nasdaq would
adjust and display a quotation for the market maker at the appropriate
percentage away from the NBBO. Other quotations directly entered by
market makers would be allowed to move freely towards the NBBO for
potential execution. If a quotation automatically entered by BX or
Nasdaq on behalf of a market maker is executed, BX or Nasdaq would
refresh the market maker's quote on the executed side of the market at
the applicable percentage away from the NBBO or, if there is no NBBO,
the last reported sale.
    Finally, NYSE Arca proposed making conforming changes to its Q
Order type. Specifically, NYSE Arca proposed to eliminate the
``standard Q,'' an order that has a price of $0.01 for the bid and two
times the previous day's close for the offer, as an available order
type. NYSE Arca also proposed to add to its Rule 7.31(k) that, to the
extent that other types of Q Order functionality remain, nothing in the
rule relating to Q Orders would be construed to relieve market makers
of their obligations under the revised NYSE Arca Rule 7.23, which
includes the proposed market maker quoting obligations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NYSE Arca has represented that it will separately file a
proposed rule change to delete the text of Rule 7.31(k)(1)(B)(1),
which states that a ``Q Order entered with reserve size * * * will
automatically repost with the original display size and $10 below
the original bid or $10 above the original offer, but never below
$0.01,'' and to remove the accompanying Q Order functionality. The
proposed date of implementation for this change will be December 6,
consistent with the implementation date for the new market maker
quoting requirements. See e-mail from Clare F. Saperstein, Vice
President, Regulatory Policy and Management, NYSE Regulation, Inc.,
to David Liu, Senior Special Counsel, and Andrew Madar, Special
Counsel, Commission, dated November 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes implementing
enhanced market maker quotation standards are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to national securities exchanges and national securities
associations. In particular, with respect to the proposals submitted by
the national securities exchanges, the Commission finds that the
proposals are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which,
among other things, requires that the rules of national securities
exchanges be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\12\ Similarly, the Commission finds that the FINRA
proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission also believes that
the proposals are consistent with Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \14\ in
that they seek to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and
among exchange markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By requiring market makers to maintain quotes that are priced
within a broad range around the NBBO, the proposed rules should help
assure that quotations submitted by market makers to an exchange or
FINRA's ADF, and displayed to market participants, bear some
relationship to the prevailing market price, and thus should promote
fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. In addition,
by precluding market makers from submitting ``stub'' quotes that are so
far

away from the prevailing market price that they are not intended to be
executed, the proposed rules should reduce the risk that trades will
occur at irrational prices. As noted above, a large number of trades
were executed at irrational prices on May 6, 2010 and were ultimately
broken. In this respect, the proposals also should promote the goals of
investor protection and fair and orderly markets. Finally, because the
SROs are proposing uniform rules with respect to these market maker
quoting obligations, the proposed rule changes as a whole will assure
these baseline standards are applied throughout the equity markets.
    The Commission also finds that the functionality proposed by BATS,
BX and Nasdaq is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which,
among other things, requires that the rules of national securities
exchanges be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed functionality should assist market makers
on BATS, BX and Nasdaq in maintaining continuous, two-sided limit
orders within the prescribed limits in the securities in which they are
registered to satisfy their new quoting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\16\ for approving the proposed Amendments No. 1 on an
accelerated basis. These amendments reflect the concern that the
proposed market maker quoting obligations should not apply during times
when market makers should be permitted to absorb material information
affecting a security for which they are registered as a market maker,
whether before or during the trading day, i.e., until there has been a
regular-way transaction on a security's primary listing market or
during a trading halt. Approving these amendments on an accelerated
basis would allow these provisions to be effective as of the
implementation date of the new market maker requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-BATS-2010-025; SR-BX-2010-
66; SR-CBOE-2010-087; SR-CHX-2010-22; SR-FINRA-2010-049; NASDAQ-2010-
115; SR-NSX-2010-12; SR-NYSE-2010-69; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-96; SR-NYSEArca-
2010-83), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby are, approved
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28443 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25655-25658]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0179]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to add a special operating regulation
governing the Meridian and Bigbee Railroad (MNBR) vertical lift span
bridge across the Tombigbee River at Naheola, Marengo and Choctaw
Counties, Alabama. The bridge currently remains in the open-to-
navigation position and only lowers for the passage of trains. This
rule proposes to codify the current schedule as a special operating
regulation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0179 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0179), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one

of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0179'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0179'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact David Frank at the telephone number or email address indicated
under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the notice.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 33 CFR 117.5 requires
that drawbridges open on signal for vessel passage. Prior to this
request to change the operating schedule of the draw, no previous
requests for changes have been received. The bridge owner has initiated
this request without consultation of waterway users but did consult
with the USCG Bridge Administration Office in New Orleans to request
guidance on how to comply with the requirements of 33 CFR 117.41.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The MNBR vertical lift span bridge crosses the Tombigbee River at
mile 128.6 (Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway mile 173.6), Naheola,
Marengo and Choctaw Counties, Alabama. The bridge is currently untended
and maintained in the open-to-navigation position, closing only for the
passage of rail traffic. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 12.2
feet above ordinary high water (OHW), elevation 64.5 feet is based on
the North American Vertical Datem of 1988 (NAVD 88), in the closed-to-
navigation position and 55 feet above OHW in the open-to-navigation
position. Many of the vessels using the waterway transit under a fixed
span of the bridge at periods of lower water due to the difficulty of
transiting the navigation span, which only has a horizontal clearance
of 150 feet between piers.
    Due to the limited number of trains using the rail line in this
area, maintaining the bridge in the fully open-to-navigation position
and only lowering the bridge for rail traffic is the preferred
operating schedule. Because this operating schedule has been in place
for over ten years, and is understood and accepted by local traffic,
the bridge owner requested that the Coast Guard publish the current
operating schedule. This operating schedule allows vessels to transit
the waterway as normal while permitting railroad personnel to lower the
bridge for the passage of train traffic after ensuring that no vessels
are approaching the bridge.
    Maintaining the bridge untended and in the open-to-navigation
position also eliminates the need for a bridge tender. This rule
proposes to codify the practice and bring it into compliance with 33
CFR 117.41(b)(1).

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Under 33 CFR 117.5, the MNBR bridge is required to open on signal
for the passage of vessels except as otherwise authorized or required.
The MNBR bridge is currently untended and operates under a schedule,
known and understood by the local users, maintaining the bridge in the
open-to-navigation position and only closing for the passage of rail
traffic. That schedule is not reflected in the CFR. This rule proposes
to publish the locally known operating schedule, codifying the schedule
as a Special Operating Requirement under 33 CFR part 117, subpart B.
The proposed special operating schedule closing the bridge to
navigation would occur as follows: When a train arrives at the bridge,
the train will stop and a crewmember from the train will observe the
waterway for approaching vessels. If vessels are approaching, the
vessels will be allowed to pass prior to the bridge being lowered. The
crewmember will then make an announcement via VHF-FM channel 16 that
the bridge will be lowered. If, after two minutes, no response has been
received, the bridge will be lowered for the passage of train traffic.
The bridge will remain down until the train has completely passed over
the bridge, then the bridge will be raised and the crewmember will
announce an ``all clear'' via VHF-FM channel 16 that the bridge has
been raised and left in the open-to-navigation position.
    If a vessel approaches while the bridge is in the closed position,
they may request an opening by contacting the railroad at a number
provided in the regulatory text as well as on the sign at the bridge or
by calling the bridge on VHF-FM channel 16.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses

based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal.
This rule proposes to codify the current operating schedule for the
MNBR bridge which is already understood, known and accepted by the
local bridge and waterway users. Very few vessels will be impacted as
the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail traffic to
pass trains two times a day, five days a week.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
wishing to transit the Tombigbee River above mile 128.6 with vessel air
drafts that would require the bridge to be open to navigation for them
to pass safely through the bridge site. This action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the bridge remains open at all times except to allow rail
traffic to pass two times a day, five days a week.
    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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    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 does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

11. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that Order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

12. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Sec.  117.118 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  117.118  Tombigbee River.

    The draw of the Meridian and Bigbee Railroad (MNBR) vertical lift
span bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 128.6 (Black Warrior
Tombigbee (BWT) Waterway mile 173.6), at Naheola, shall operate as
follows:
    (a) The draw shall be maintained in the fully open-to-navigation
position for vessels at all times, except during periods when it is
closed for the passage of rail traffic.
    (b) When a train approaches the bridge, it will stop and a
crewmember from the train will observe the waterway for approaching
vessels. If vessels are observed approaching the bridge, they will be
allowed to pass prior to lowering the bridge. The crewmember will then
announce via radiotelephone on VHF-FM channel 16 that the bridge is
preparing to be lowered. If, after two minutes, no response has been
received, the crewmember will initiate the lowering sequence.
    (c) After the train has completely passed over the bridge, the
crewmember will initiate the raising sequence. When the bridge is in
the fully open-to-navigation position, the crewmember will announce via
radiotelephone on VHF-FM channel 16 that the bridge is in the fully
open-to-navigation position.
    (d) To request openings of the bridge when the lift span is in the
closed-to-navigation position, mariners may contact the MNBR via VHF-FM
channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2012.
Roy A. Nash,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-10449 Filed 4-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9910-04-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 11001-11003]
[DOCID:fr03mr06-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53363; File No. SR-Amex-2006-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Adoption of a Licensing Fee for Options on the
PowerShares Zacks SmallCap Portfolio

February 24, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 15, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. Amex has

designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 7 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule by
adopting a per contract license fee for the orders of specialists,
registered options traders (``ROTs''), firms, non-member market makers,
and broker-dealers in connection with options transactions in the
PowerShares Zacks SmallCap Portfolio (symbol: PZJ).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at the principal office of the Amex, and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Amex proposes to adopt a per contract licensing fee for options on
PZJ. These fee changes will be assessed on members commencing February
16, 2006.
    The Exchange has entered into numerous agreements with various
index providers for the purpose of trading options on certain exchange
traded funds (``ETFs''), such as PZJ. This requirement to pay an index
license fee to a third party is a condition to the listing and trading
of these ETF options. In many cases, the Exchange is required to pay a
significant licensing fee to the index provider that may not be
reimbursed. In an effort to recoup the costs associated with certain
index licenses, the Exchange has established a per contract licensing
fee for the orders of specialists, ROTs, firms, non-member market
makers and broker-dealers, which is collected on every option
transaction in designated products in which such market participant is
a party.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52493
(September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposal is to charge an options licensing fee
in connection with options on PZJ (the ``PowerShares SmallCap ETF'').
Specifically, Amex seeks to charge an options licensing fee of $0.05
per contract side for the PowerShares Small Cap ETF option for
specialist, ROT, firm, non-member market maker and broker-dealer orders
executed on the Exchange. In all cases, the fees will be charged only
to the Exchange members through whom the orders are placed.
    The proposed options licensing fee will allow the Exchange to
recoup its costs in connection with the index license fee for the
trading of the PowerShares SmallCap ETF option. The fees will be
collected on every order of a specialist, ROT, firm, non-member market
maker, and broker-dealer executed on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the proposal to require payment of a per contract
licensing fee in connection with the PowerShares SmallCap ETF option by
those market participants that are the beneficiaries of Exchange index
license agreements is justified and consistent with the rules of the
Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that the Amex, in recent years, has revised a
number of fees to better align Exchange fees with the actual cost of
delivering services and reduce Exchange subsidies of such services.\6\
Amex believes that the implementation of this proposal is consistent
with the reduction and/or elimination of these subsidies. Amex believes
that these fees will help to allocate to those market participants
engaging in transactions in PowerShares SmallCap ETF options, a fair
share of the related costs of offering such options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45360
(January 29, 2002), 67 FR 5626 (February 6, 2002); and 44286 (May 9,
2001), 66 FR 27187 (May 16, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.\7\ In connection with the adoption of an
options licensing fee for PowerShares SmallCap ETF options, the
Exchange believes that charging an options licensing fee, where
applicable, to all market participant orders except for customer orders
is reasonable, given the competitive pressures in the industry.\8\
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks, through this proposal, to better align
its transaction charges with the cost of providing products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 6(b)(4) states that the rules of a national
securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and
issuers and other persons using its facilities.
    \8\ Telephone call between Jeffrey Burns, Vice President and
Associate General Counsel, Amex, and Angela Muehr, Attorney,
Division of Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission, on
February 22, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Amex believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ regarding the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among exchange members and
other persons using exchange facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change was filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\11\
because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the self-regulatory organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2006-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2006-18 and should be submitted on or before March
24, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3015 Filed 3-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P