[Federal Register: May 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 102)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29657-29658]
[DOCID:fr27my10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1167; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-33]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Marianna, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace for Marianna, AR to
accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs) at Marianna/Lee County Airport--Steve Edwards Field,
Marianna, AR. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 29, 2010. 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: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 15, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace for
Marianna, AR, creating controlled airspace at Marianna/Lee County
Airport--Steve Edwards Field (75 FR 12161) Docket No. FAA-2009-1167.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published
in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate SIAPs at Marianna/Lee County Airport--
Steve Edwards Field, Marianna, AR. This action is necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    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 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 U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Marianna/Lee County Airport--
Steve Edwards Field, Marianna, AR.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Marianna, AR [New]

Marianna/Lee County Airport--Steve Edwards Field
    (Lat. 34[deg]46'58'' N., long. 90[deg]48'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Marianna/Lee County Airport--Steve
Edwards Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 13, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-12364 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14658-14659]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07157]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OW-2018-0724; FRL-9990-97-Region 8]

Approval of Transfer of the Authority To Implement and Enforce
the North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)
Program From the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDOH) to the Newly
Established North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: On March 29, 2019, the Administrator for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved the transfer of authority for the
North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES) from the
North Dakota Department of Health (NDDOH) program to their newly
established North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ).
With this action, the EPA has retained the authority to issue NPDES
permits for facilities located on tribal lands and/or discharging to
tribal waters.

DATES: On March 29, 2019, the Administrator for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved the transfer of authority from the
NDDOH to the NDDEQ.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VelRey Lozano, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, (8WP-CWW), 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are: The EPA; tribal
programs; and the regulated community and citizens within the state of
North Dakota. This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it
provides a guide for readers regarding entities that this action is
likely to regulate.

    Table 1--Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Indian Tribal Governments....  States and Indian Tribes that
                                          provide certification under
                                          section 401 of the Clean Water
                                          Act (CWA); States and Indian
                                          Tribes that own or operate
                                          treatment works.
Municipalities.........................  POTWs required to apply for or
                                          seek coverage under an NPDES
                                          individual or general permit
                                          and to perform routine
                                          monitoring as a condition of
                                          an NPDES permit.
Industry...............................  Facilities required to apply
                                          for or seek coverage under an
                                          NPDES individual or general
                                          permit and to perform routine
                                          monitoring as a condition of
                                          an NPDES permit.
NPDES Stakeholders.....................  Any party that may review and
                                          provide comments on NPDES
                                          permits.
Residents of the state of North Dakota.  Any party that may review and
                                          provide comments on NPDES
                                          permits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What action is EPA taking?

    The EPA if providing final notice of approval of the transfer of
authority from the State of North Dakota's Department of Health (NDDOH)
granting the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ)
the authority to administer the NDPDES program in North Dakota to
regulate discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States
under its jurisdiction. Concurrent with this approval, EPA is approving
updated NDPDES program revisions. With this action the EPA will retain
the authority to issue NPDES permits for facilities located on tribal
lands and/or discharging to tribal waters.

C. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    Under 40 CFR 123.62(b) and 123.62(c), the CWA requires the EPA to
approve substantial revisions to a state program. The EPA considers the
change of state authority and updating of the NDPDES program rules to
be substantial and has therefore taken this action.

    Public Process: EPA opened a 30-day public comment period that
ended on November 29, 2018. One comment was received questioning the
States authority to properly implement the enforcement provisions under
the CWA. The comment was determined to be beyond the scope of the
state's transfer of authority request. EPA provided response to the
commenter and no change to the NDPDES program application was deemed
necessary.

    Authority: This action is taken under the authority of section
402 of the Clean Water Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1342. I hereby
provide public notice of EPA's final action authorizing the State of
North Dakota through the NDDEQ to administer the approval NDPDES
program regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S.
under its jurisdiction.

    Dated: April 5, 2019.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-07157 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54642-54643]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13214-003]

Lock 12 Hydro Partners; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major License (5 Megawatts or less).
    b. Project No.: 13214-003.
    c. Date filed: May 16, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Lock 12 Hydro Partners, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Ravenna Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the Kentucky River Authority's Lock and Dam No. 12,
on the Kentucky River, near the Town of Ravenna, Estill County
Kentucky. No lands managed by the Federal government are located within
the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David Brown Kinloch, Lock 12 Hydro Partners,
414 S. Wenzel Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40204,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary
terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13214-003.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The Ravenna Project consists of: (1) An existing 240-foot-long,
17-foot-high concrete lock and dam; (2) an existing 345-acre reservoir
having a storage capacity of 3,450-acre-feet; (3) a new 40-foot-high
and 52-foot-wide trashrack; (4) a new powerhouse within the abandoned
lock chamber containing four generating units for a total installed
capacity of 2,640 kilowatts; and (5) a new 1,500-foot-long, 12.47 kilo-
Volt transmission line. The project is estimated to generate an average
of 10,673,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The existing lock and dam are
owned by the Kentucky River Authority.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those
who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's
Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to
intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for
the particular application.
    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the
Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.

    All filings must: (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' or ``COMPETING APPLICATION''; (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application.

    Dated: August 28, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-21524 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A B Date Modified: 5/ 25/ 2006 By: Abt Associates Inc.

Data Sources: SAS Analysis Output file: Work. linear4 Description: This file calculates the industry specific factors used to adjust facility cash flow, as calculated from facility survey responses, for the change in industry specific conditions from the time of the 316( b) survey to mid year 2003. This file receives output data from a SAS analysis of firm financial performance over the period 1992 2003 and calculates adjustment factors under alternative adjustment concepts, as outlined in Appendix 4 to Chapter C3 of the 316( b) Phase III Economic Analysis Report.

° " Adj Fctr Matrix" summarizes the adjustment factors used in the analysis, as well as the indicated adjustment factor values for alternative adjustment concepts considered in the analysis. ° " Appendix Tables 1, 2, and 3" generate tables included in the Appendix. ° " Adjustment Calculations" contains the calculations of the adjustment factors using information from the SAS Output file: Work. linear4. ° " Linear4" contains the output data from the SAS file. ° " Linear Trend vs Index" reorganizes data from the SAS output file as needed for calculating the adjustment factors. ° The file also contains a series of charts of the actual and trend predicted industry specific cash flow values over the 1992 2003 analysis period. These charts appear in the Economic Analysis report appendix.

Purpose: Calculation of industry specific factors for adjusting facility cash flow for the change in industry specific conditions from the time of the 316( b) survey to mid year 2003.

11/ 01/ 04 1 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, File Information Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A B C D E F G Adjustments to 3 Year Average of Constant Dollar Pre Interest After Tax Cash Flow Multiply Constant Dollar Pre Interest After Tax Cash Flow by Indicated Values Adjusting to ATCF Trend Adjust to Adjust to Long Term Trend by Compliance Year Industry 2003 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Iron and Steel 0.8056 0.7821 0.7788 0.7754 0.7721 0.7687 Industrial Chemicals 0.9228 0.9306 0.9317 0.9328 0.9339 0.9350 Aluminum Analysis not undertaken for the Aluminum industry Petroleum Refining 1.2480 1.4224 1.4473 1.4723 1.4972 1.5221 Pharmaceuticals 1.3171 1.6761 1.7274 1.7786 1.8299 1.8812 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1.1398 1.3538 1.3843 1.4149 1.4455 1.4761 Pulp & Paper Mills 1.0397 1.0372 1.0368 1.0365 1.0361 1.0357 Adjusting to ATCF Index Adjust to Adjust to Long Term Trend by Compliance Year Industry 2003 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Iron and Steel 0.4786 0.4551 0.4518 0.4484 0.4451 0.4417 Industrial Chemicals 0.9726 0.9804 0.9815 0.9826 0.9837 0.9848 Aluminum Analysis not undertaken for the Aluminum industry Petroleum Refining 1.3937 1.5681 1.5930 1.6179 1.6428 1.6678 Pharmaceuticals 1.0596 1.4186 1.4699 1.5212 1.5725 1.6237 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1.0926 1.3066 1.3372 1.3677 1.3983 1.4289 Pulp & Paper Mills 0.9280 0.9255 0.9251 0.9248 0.9244 0.9240 11/ 01/ 04 2 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Adj Fctr Matrix Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F Key Results from Analysis of After Tax Cash Flow Trends by 316( b) Industry for 1992 2003 316( b) Phase III Industry Group Estimated Trend Average of ATCF Index Values at 1996 1998 Average of Predicted Trend Values at 1996 1998 Predicted Trend Value at 2003 Aluminum Analysis not undertaken for the Aluminum industry Pulp and Paper Mills  0.0004 0.98953 1.03058 1.02880 Industrial Chemicals 0.0012 1.10059 1.00837 1.01567 Plastics Material and Resins 0.0318 1.03865 0.99332 1.18383 Pharmaceuticals 0.0507 0.98775 0.99703 1.30096 Petroleum Refining 0.0230 0.92346 1.01441 1.15248 Steel  0.0042 1.25879 1.03948 1.01414 11/ 01/ 04 3 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Appendix Tables 1 Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C Percentage Difference in Actual and Predicted ATCF Index Values at 1996 1998 Percentage Difference in Actual ATCF Index Values at 1996 1998 and Trend Predicted Value at 2003 Aluminum Analysis not undertaken for the Aluminum industry Pulp and Paper Mills  4.0%  3.8% Industrial Chemicals 9.1% 8.4% Plastics Material and Resins 4.6%  12.3% Pharmaceuticals  0.9%  24.1% Petroleum Refining  9.0%  19.9% Steel 21.1% 24.1% Estimated Relationship Between Actual ATCF at Survey Period and Trend Predicted Values at Survey Period and End of Analysis Period 11/ 01/ 04 4 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Appendix Tables 2 Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A B C D E F G H Using After Tax Cash Flow Adjustment Factors in the Facility Closure Analysis Summary Results from Facility Impact Analysis Number of Using Adjustment Factors Not Using Factors Adjustment Factor Facilities Analyzed Baseline Closures Regulatory Closures Baseline Closures Regulatory Closures Aluminum 1.0000 21 7 0 7 0 Pulp and Paper Mills 1.0397 230 32 0 32 0 Chemicals Industry Industrial Chemicals 0.9228 138 4 0 4 0 Plastics Material and Resins 1.1398 34 0 0 0 0 Pharmaceuticals 1.3171 6 0 0 0 0 Petroleum Refining 1.2480 36 5 0 5 1 Steel 0.8056 68 29 0 25 0 Total 532 76 0 73 1 Adjustment factor not developed for Aluminum industry Baseline and regulatory closure data are from: ' H:\ ENVR\ 316b\ Phase III\_ Proposal\_ Manufacturers\ Analysis\ P3P MN Facility Impact. xls 11/ 01/ 04 5 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Appendix Tables 3 Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Calculation of ATCF Adjustment Factors Year Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 from analysis of cash flow and trends by industry Rule Yr Potential Compliance Years Year Slope 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Iron and Steel Time Trend  0.0042 1.0606 1.0564 1.0522 1.0479 1.0437 1.0395 1.0353 1.0310 1.0268 1.0226 1.0184 1.0141 1.0099 1.0057 1.0015 0.9972 0.9930 0.9888 0.9846 0.9803 0.9761 0.9719 0.9677 Index ATCF 0.5625 0.8492 1.0610 1.2793 1.1622 1.3516 1.2626 1.0825 1.1304 0.6684 0.9020 0.6025 0.5983 0.5941 0.5898 0.5856 0.5814 0.5772 0.5729 0.5687 0.5645 0.5603 0.5560 Average, 1996 1998 Index ATCF 1.2588 Ratio to 1996 1998 ATCF Average adjusting to final value in analysis period Time Trend 0.8426 0.8392 0.8358 0.8325 0.8291 0.8258 0.8224 0.8191 0.8157 0.8124 0.8090 0.8056 0.8023 0.7989 0.7956 0.7922 0.7889 0.7855 0.7821 0.7788 0.7754 0.7721 0.7687 Index ATCF 0.4469 0.6746 0.8429 1.0163 0.9233 1.0737 1.0030 0.8599 0.8980 0.5310 0.7166 0.4786 0.4753 0.4719 0.4686 0.4652 0.4619 0.4585 0.4551 0.4518 0.4484 0.4451 0.4417 Industrial Chemicals Time Trend 0.0012 1.0023 1.0035 1.0047 1.0059 1.0072 1.0084 1.0096 1.0108 1.0120 1.0132 1.0145 1.0157 1.0169 1.0181 1.0193 1.0205 1.0218 1.0230 1.0242 1.0254 1.0266 1.0278 1.0291 Index ATCF 0.8689 0.8713 0.9672 1.1654 1.1154 1.1085 1.0779 1.0604 1.1043 0.8813 0.8174 1.0705 1.0717 1.0729 1.0741 1.0754 1.0766 1.0778 1.0790 1.0802 1.0814 1.0827 1.0839 Average, 1996 1998 Index ATCF 1.1006 Ratio to 1996 1998 ATCF Average Time Trend 0.9107 0.9118 0.9129 0.9140 0.9151 0.9162 0.9173 0.9184 0.9195 0.9206 0.9217 0.9228 0.9239 0.9251 0.9262 0.9273 0.9284 0.9295 0.9306 0.9317 0.9328 0.9339 0.9350 Index ATCF 0.7894 0.7916 0.8788 1.0589 1.0135 1.0071 0.9794 0.9635 1.0034 0.8008 0.7427 0.9726 0.9738 0.9749 0.9760 0.9771 0.9782 0.9793 0.9804 0.9815 0.9826 0.9837 0.9848 Petroleum Refining Time Trend 0.0230 0.8994 0.9224 0.9454 0.9684 0.9914 1.0144 1.0374 1.0604 1.0834 1.1065 1.1295 1.1525 1.1755 1.1985 1.2215 1.2445 1.2675 1.2905 1.3136 1.3366 1.3596 1.3826 1.4056 Index ATCF 0.9073 1.0889 0.9155 0.9719 0.7650 1.1196 0.8857 0.7273 1.3472 1.3324 0.7477 1.2870 1.3100 1.3330 1.3560 1.3790 1.4020 1.4251 1.4481 1.4711 1.4941 1.5171 1.5401 Average, 1996 1998 Index ATCF 0.9235 Ratio to 1996 1998 ATCF Average Time Trend 0.9739 0.9988 1.0237 1.0487 1.0736 1.0985 1.1234 1.1483 1.1732 1.1982 1.2231 1.2480 1.2729 1.2978 1.3228 1.3477 1.3726 1.3975 1.4224 1.4473 1.4723 1.4972 1.5221 Index ATCF 0.9825 1.1791 0.9914 1.0524 0.8285 1.2124 0.9592 0.7876 1.4588 1.4428 0.8097 1.3937 1.4186 1.4435 1.4684 1.4933 1.5183 1.5432 1.5681 1.5930 1.6179 1.6428 1.6678 Pharmaceuticals Time Trend 0.0507 0.7438 0.7944 0.8451 0.8957 0.9464 0.9970 1.0477 1.0983 1.1490 1.1997 1.2503 1.3010 1.3516 1.4023 1.4529 1.5036 1.5542 1.6049 1.6555 1.7062 1.7569 1.8075 1.8582 Index ATCF 0.7124 0.7348 0.7466 0.8263 0.8920 0.9955 1.0757 1.2929 1.3625 1.4279 1.0540 1.0467 1.0973 1.1480 1.1986 1.2493 1.2999 1.3506 1.4012 1.4519 1.5025 1.5532 1.6039 Average, 1996 1998 Index ATCF 0.9878 Ratio to 1996 1998 ATCF Average Time Trend 0.7530 0.8043 0.8555 0.9068 0.9581 1.0094 1.0607 1.1120 1.1632 1.2145 1.2658 1.3171 1.3684 1.4197 1.4709 1.5222 1.5735 1.6248 1.6761 1.7274 1.7786 1.8299 1.8812 Index ATCF 0.7212 0.7439 0.7558 0.8365 0.9031 1.0079 1.0890 1.3090 1.3794 1.4456 1.0670 1.0596 1.1109 1.1622 1.2135 1.2648 1.3160 1.3673 1.4186 1.4699 1.5212 1.5725 1.6237 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Time Trend 0.0318 0.8346 0.8663 0.8981 0.9298 0.9616 0.9933 1.0251 1.0568 1.0886 1.1203 1.1521 1.1838 1.2156 1.2473 1.2791 1.3108 1.3426 1.3743 1.4061 1.4379 1.4696 1.5014 1.5331 Index ATCF 0.7915 0.7585 0.8487 0.9855 0.9698 1.0350 1.1111 1.1838 1.1332 1.0638 1.0658 1.1348 1.1666 1.1983 1.2301 1.2618 1.2936 1.3253 1.3571 1.3888 1.4206 1.4524 1.4841 Average, 1996 1998 Index ATCF 1.0387 Ratio to 1996 1998 ATCF Average Time Trend 0.8035 0.8341 0.8646 0.8952 0.9258 0.9564 0.9869 1.0175 1.0481 1.0786 1.1092 1.1398 1.1703 1.2009 1.2315 1.2621 1.2926 1.3232 1.3538 1.3843 1.4149 1.4455 1.4761 Index ATCF 0.7620 0.7303 0.8171 0.9488 0.9337 0.9965 1.0698 1.1397 1.0911 1.0242 1.0261 1.0926 1.1232 1.1537 1.1843 1.2149 1.2455 1.2760 1.3066 1.3372 1.3677 1.3983 1.4289 Pulp & Paper Mills Time Trend  0.0004 1.0324 1.0320 1.0316 1.0313 1.0309 1.0306 1.0302 1.0299 1.0295 1.0292 1.0288 1.0288 1.0284 1.0281 1.0277 1.0274 1.0270 1.0267 1.0263 1.0260 1.0256 1.0252 1.0249 Index ATCF 0.7793 0.9117 0.9837 1.4782 1.0399 0.9008 1.0279 1.3557 1.2849 0.9278 0.8614 0.9183 0.9179 0.9176 0.9172 0.9169 0.9165 0.9161 0.9158 0.9154 0.9151 0.9147 0.9144 Average, 1996 1998 Index ATCF 0.9895 Ratio to 1996 1998 ATCF Average Time Trend 1.0433 1.0429 1.0426 1.0422 1.0418 1.0415 1.0411 1.0408 1.0404 1.0400 1.0397 1.0397 1.0393 1.0390 1.0386 1.0382 1.0379 1.0375 1.0372 1.0368 1.0365 1.0361 1.0357 Index ATCF 0.7876 0.9214 0.9941 1.4938 1.0509 0.9103 1.0388 1.3700 1.2985 0.9376 0.8705 0.9280 0.9276 0.9273 0.9269 0.9266 0.9262 0.9258 0.9255 0.9251 0.9248 0.9244 0.9240 11/ 01/ 04 6 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Adjustment Calculations Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 A B C D E F G H From work. linear4 in Industry_ Analysis_ GDP_ adjusted_ Average_ Indexed_ 052804 ( H:\ ENVR\ 316b\ Phase III\_ Proposal\_ Manufacturers\ Mfgrs Bsns Conditions Adj\ SAS work)

Industry Year trend weigh_ avg_ indexATCF_ adj N Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1992 1.0606 0.5625 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1993 1.0564 0.8492 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1994 1.0522 1.0610 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1995 1.0479 1.2793 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1996 1.0437 1.1622 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1997 1.0395 1.3516 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1998 1.0353 1.2626 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1999 1.0310 1.0825 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2000 1.0268 1.1304 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2001 1.0226 0.6684 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2002 1.0184 0.9020 14 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2003 1.0141 0.6025 9 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1992 1.0023 0.8689 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1993 1.0035 0.8713 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1994 1.0047 0.9672 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1995 1.0059 1.1654 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1996 1.0072 1.1154 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1997 1.0084 1.1085 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1998 1.0096 1.0779 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1999 1.0108 1.0604 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2000 1.0120 1.1043 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2001 1.0132 0.8813 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2002 1.0145 0.8174 15 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2003 1.0157 1.0705 13 Petroleum Refining 1992 0.8994 0.9073 6 Petroleum Refining 1993 0.9224 1.0889 6 Petroleum Refining 1994 0.9454 0.9155 6 Petroleum Refining 1995 0.9684 0.9719 6 Petroleum Refining 1996 0.9914 0.7650 6 Petroleum Refining 1997 1.0144 1.1196 6 Petroleum Refining 1998 1.0374 0.8857 6 Petroleum Refining 1999 1.0604 0.7273 6 Petroleum Refining 2000 1.0834 1.3472 6 Petroleum Refining 2001 1.1065 1.3324 6 Petroleum Refining 2002 1.1295 0.7477 6 Petroleum Refining 2003 1.1525 1.2870 5 Pharmaceuticals 1992 0.7438 0.7124 4 Pharmaceuticals 1993 0.7944 0.7348 4 Pharmaceuticals 1994 0.8451 0.7466 4 Pharmaceuticals 1995 0.8957 0.8263 4 Pharmaceuticals 1996 0.9464 0.8920 4 Pharmaceuticals 1997 0.9970 0.9955 4 Pharmaceuticals 1998 1.0477 1.0757 4 Pharmaceuticals 1999 1.0983 1.2929 4 Pharmaceuticals 2000 1.1490 1.3625 4 Pharmaceuticals 2001 1.1997 1.4279 4 Pharmaceuticals 2002 1.2503 1.0540 4 Pharmaceuticals 2003 1.3010 1.0467 4 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1992 0.8346 0.7915 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1993 0.8663 0.7585 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1994 0.8981 0.8487 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1995 0.9298 0.9855 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1996 0.9616 0.9698 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1997 0.9933 1.0350 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1998 1.0251 1.1111 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1999 1.0568 1.1838 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2000 1.0886 1.1332 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2001 1.1203 1.0638 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2002 1.1521 1.0658 15 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2003 1.1838 1.1348 15 Pulp & Paper Mills 1992 1.0794 0.7620 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1993 1.0697 0.8823 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1994 1.0600 0.9540 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1995 1.0503 1.7058 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1996 1.0406 1.0024 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1997 1.0309 0.8645 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1998 1.0212 0.9754 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 1999 1.0115 1.2807 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 2000 1.0017 1.2149 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 2001 0.9920 0.8739 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 2002 0.9823 0.8107 6 Pulp & Paper Mills 2003 0.9726 0.8629 5 11/ 01/ 04 7 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Linear4 Record for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 A B C D Industry Year Time Trend Index ATCF Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1992 1.06061 0.56255 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1993 1.05638 0.84923 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1994 1.05216 1.06104 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1995 1.04793 1.27931 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1996 1.04371 1.16220 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1997 1.03948 1.35163 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1998 1.03526 1.26256 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 1999 1.03103 1.08249 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2000 1.02681 1.13037 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2001 1.02259 0.66842 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2002 1.01836 0.90203 Ferrous Metals  Iron and Steel  Processing 2003 1.01414 0.60250 Industry Year Time Trend Index ATCF Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1992 1.00228 0.86885 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1993 1.00350 0.87126 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1994 1.00472 0.96723 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1995 1.00593 1.16542 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1996 1.00715 1.11540 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1997 1.00837 1.10846 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1998 1.00958 1.07792 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 1999 1.01080 1.06044 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2000 1.01202 1.10434 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2001 1.01324 0.88134 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2002 1.01445 0.81739 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals 2003 1.01567 1.07049 Industry Year Time Trend Index ATCF Petroleum Refining 1992 0.89936 0.90729 Petroleum Refining 1993 0.92237 1.08888 Petroleum Refining 1994 0.94538 0.91551 Petroleum Refining 1995 0.96839 0.97186 Petroleum Refining 1996 0.99140 0.76504 Petroleum Refining 1997 1.01441 1.11959 Petroleum Refining 1998 1.03743 0.88575 Petroleum Refining 1999 1.06044 0.72730 Petroleum Refining 2000 1.08345 1.34718 Petroleum Refining 2001 1.10646 1.33240 Petroleum Refining 2002 1.12947 0.74771 Petroleum Refining 2003 1.15248 1.28699 Industry Year Time Trend Index ATCF Pharmaceuticals 1992 0.74376 0.71241 Pharmaceuticals 1993 0.79441 0.73480 Pharmaceuticals 1994 0.84507 0.74655 Pharmaceuticals 1995 0.89572 0.82627 Pharmaceuticals 1996 0.94638 0.89201 Pharmaceuticals 1997 0.99703 0.99554 Pharmaceuticals 1998 1.04769 1.07570 Pharmaceuticals 1999 1.09834 1.29293 Pharmaceuticals 2000 1.14900 1.36248 Pharmaceuticals 2001 1.19965 1.42794 Pharmaceuticals 2002 1.25031 1.05397 Pharmaceuticals 2003 1.30096 1.04665 Industry Year Time Trend Index ATCF Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1992 0.83456 0.79149 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1993 0.86631 0.75853 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1994 0.89806 0.84871 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1995 0.92981 0.98547 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1996 0.96157 0.96983 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1997 0.99332 1.03500 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1998 1.02507 1.11113 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 1999 1.05682 1.18377 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2000 1.08858 1.13324 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2001 1.12033 1.06382 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2002 1.15208 1.06576 Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 2003 1.18383 1.13483 Industry Year Time Trend Index ATCF Pulp & Paper Mills 1992 1.03235 0.77931 Pulp & Paper Mills 1993 1.03200 0.91171 Pulp & Paper Mills 1994 1.03164 0.98369 Pulp & Paper Mills 1995 1.03129 1.47820 Pulp & Paper Mills 1996 1.03093 1.03993 Pulp & Paper Mills 1997 1.03058 0.90078 Pulp & Paper Mills 1998 1.03022 1.02787 Pulp & Paper Mills 1999 1.02986 1.35567 Pulp & Paper Mills 2000 1.02951 1.28495 Pulp & Paper Mills 2001 1.02915 0.92781 Pulp & Paper Mills 2002 1.02880 0.86135 Pulp & Paper Mills 2003 1.02880 0.91827 11/ 01/ 04 8 of 14 DCTM_ ARP. xls, Linear Trend vs Index ATCF Index vs Trend Iron and Steel 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 1.40000 1.60000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year ATCF Index Time Trend Index ATCF ATCF Index vs Trend Industrial Chemicals 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 1.40000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year ATCF Index Time Trend Index ATCF ATCF Index vs Trend Petroleum Refining 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 1.40000 1.60000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year ATCF Index Time Trend Index ATCF ATCF Index vs Trend Pharmaceuticals 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 1.40000 1.60000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year ATCF Index Time Trend Index ATCF ATCF Index vs Trend Plastic Material and Resins 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 1.40000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year ATCF Index Time Trend Index ATCF ATCF Index vs Trend Pulp & Paper Mills 0.00000 0.20000 0.40000 0.60000 0.80000 1.00000 1.20000 1.40000 1.60000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year ACTF Index Time Trend Index ATCF


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 65640]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-8-000]

Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on October 16, 2013, Transwestern Pipeline
Company, LLC (Transwestern), 1300 Main Street, Houston TX 77002, filed
in Docket No. CP14-8-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Transwestern seeks authorization to
construct, own, operate, and maintain one refurbished 11,750 horsepower
(hp) site-rated turbine, compressor, and ancillary facilities,
including yard piping, at a new compressor station to be located in
Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed project will increase mainline
capacity on Transwestern's Phoenix Lateral by 160 million cubic feet
per day (MMcf/day). Transwestern proposes to perform these activities
under its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-534-000 [21
FERC ] 62,190 (1982)] all as more fully set forth in the application,
which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Mr.
Kelly Allen, Manager of Certificates and Reporting, Transwestern
Pipeline Company, LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston TX 77002, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax) or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: October 25, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26027 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48612-48613]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20879]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0025; FRL-9982-51-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos
(40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M) (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asbestos (40 CFR
part 61, subpart M) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 0111.15, OMB Control No.
2060-0101) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before
doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
second notice requesting comment on the proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through March 31, 2019. The burden in this
notice includes changes in reporting and recordkeeping resulting from a
recent action on an alternative work practice and a planned change to
allow electronic reporting for notifications. An Agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2014-0025 online using https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to: [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats,

information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (Mail Code D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: For the Asbestos NESHAP ICR, owners and operators of
affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part
61, subpart M, as well as the applicable specific standards. This
includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests, and
periodic reports and results, maintaining records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These reports are used by the EPA to determine
compliance with the standard.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners/operators of demolition and
renovation activities; asbestos waste disposal; asbestos milling,
manufacturing, and fabricating facilities; use of asbestos on roadways;
asbestos waste converting facilities; and use of asbestos insulation
and sprayed-on materials.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart M).
    Estimated number of respondents: 9,575 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and
semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 261,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $26,300,000, includes no annualized capital
or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The burden in this document includes changes
in reporting and recordkeeping resulting from a recent action on an
alternative work practice and a planned change to allow electronic
reporting for notifications. There is a decrease of 30,778 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to the movement from
notifications submitted only through the U.S. mail to electronic
notifications.

    Dated: August 16, 2018.
David Cozzie,
Acting Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-20879 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ATTACHMENT C Areas That Will Likely Require Additional Planning Lake Porter Boone Hamilton Madison Hendricks Marion Hancock Morgan Johnson Shelby Legend Counties CTYNAME additional planning


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12500-12501]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04490]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will
hold a public meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2021. The meeting will
begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public.

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members
of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's
website at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of
the Commission may attend the meeting. On February 17, 2021, the
Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release Nos. 33-
10927, 34-91150), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and
inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee.
    MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda for the meeting includes:
Welcome remarks; approval of previous meeting minutes; a follow-on
panel discussion regarding self-directed individual retirement accounts
(IRAs); a panel discussion regarding special purpose acquisition
companies (SPACs); a discussion of a recommendation regarding minority
and underserved inclusion; a discussion of a recommendation regarding
credit rating agencies; subcommittee reports; and a non-public
administrative session.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 1, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04490 Filed 3-1-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9970-9971]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0968]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the operating schedule
that governs the Oregon State highway bridge across Youngs Bay foot of
Fifth Street (Old Youngs Bay Bridge), mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR. The
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requested to change the
operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge for several months
while work is performed on the north bascule lift. This change will
allow ODOT to operate the double bascule draw in single leaf mode, one
lift at a time, and reduce the vertical clearance of the non-operable
half of the span by five feet.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 7 a.m. on March 1,
2017 to 5 p.m. on October 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0968 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
TFR Temporary Final Rule
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
ODOT Oregon State Department of Transportation

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On November 25, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Youngs Bay, Astoria, OR in
the Federal Register (81 FR 85201). We received no comments on the
proposed rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    The Old Youngs Bay Bridge across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street,
mile 2.4, at Astoria, OR, has a vertical clearance of 19 feet above
mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge
operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(b). ODOT requested to change
the operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge for several months
while work is performed on the north bascule lift.
    This temporary rule will allow ODOT to operate the double bascule
draw in single leaf mode, one lift at a time. One half of the double
bascule bridge will have a containment system installed on the north
half of the span, which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet
from 19 feet above mean high water to 14 feet above mean high water on
the non-operable half of the span. Adjusting the existing drawbridge
regulation will allow construction workers to complete bridge and
highway upgrades before winter of 2017, while having minimal impact on
maritime navigation, and no alternate routes are on this part of Youngs
Bay into Youngs River. Marine traffic on Youngs Bay consists of vessels
ranging from small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing
boats, and commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Temporary Final Rule

    We provided a comment period of 30 days, no comments were received.
This rule will temporarily amend 33 CFR 117.899(b) by allowing the
south lift only to open in single leaf mode, and suspend a full
opening.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting

flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This
regulatory action determination is based on the ability for the Old
Youngs Bay Bridge to open half the span on signal, and not delay
passage of any mariner. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass under
the bridge at any time. The north lift vertical clearance will be
reduced as explained in paragraph III. No alternate routes are
available on this part of Youngs Bay.

B. 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is
categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.899 by suspending paragraph (b) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.899  Youngs Bay and Lewis and Clark River.

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the Oregon State (Old Youngs Bay) Highway Bridge,
mile 2.4, across Youngs Bay foot of Fifth Street, shall open the south
half of the double bascule span on signal for the passage of vessels,
if at least one half-hour notice is given to the drawtender, at the
Lewis and Clark River Bridge by marine radio, telephone, or other
suitable means from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from March 1, 2017 to October 31,
2017. At all other times, including all Federal holidays, but Columbus
Day, at least a two-hour notice by telephone is required. The opening
signal is two prolonged blasts followed by one short blast.

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Mark Butt,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2017-02603 Filed 2-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73376-73380]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25943]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96373; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Options Fee Schedule Concerning the Options Regulatory Fee

November 22, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 14, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF''), effective November 14, 2022.\4\ The proposed change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange previously filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
September 28, 2022 (SR-NYSEAMER-2022-45) and withdrew such filing on
November 14, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (1) waive the
ORF for the period November 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023; (2)
eliminate the requirement that the Exchange may only modify the ORF
semi-annually; and (3) delete outdated language relating to the ORF for
August 30, 2019 (the ``August 2019 ORF'').
Background
    As a general matter, the Exchange may only use regulatory funds
such as the ORF ``to fund the legal, regulatory, and surveillance
operations'' of the Exchange.\5\ More specifically, the ORF is designed
to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's costs for
the supervision and regulation of ATP Holders, including the Exchange's
regulatory program and legal expenses associated with options, such as
the costs related to in-house staff, third-party service providers, and
technology that facilitate surveillance, investigation, examinations
and enforcement (collectively, the ``ORF Costs''). ORF funds may also
be used for indirect expenses such as human resources and other
administrative costs. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that this revenue, in combination with
other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange considers surveillance operations part of
regulatory operations. The limitation on the use of regulatory funds
also provides that they shall not be distributed. See Thirteenth
Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE American LLC,
Article IV, Section 4.05 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
87993 (January 16, 2020), 85 FR 4050 (January 23, 2020) (SR-
NYSEAMER-2020-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is assessed on ATP Holders for options transactions that
are cleared

by the ATP Holder through the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in
the Customer range regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurs.\6\ All options transactions must clear via a clearing firm and
such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a portion, or
none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the entering firms.
Because the ORF is collected from ATP Holder clearing firms by the OCC
on behalf of NYSE American,\7\ the Exchange believes that using options
transactions in the Customer range serves as a proxy for how to
apportion regulatory costs among such ATP Holders. In addition, the
Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoring ATP Holders with
respect to Customer trading activity are generally higher than the
costs associated with monitoring ATP Holders that do not engage in
Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating ATP Holders that engage in
Customer trading activity is generally more labor intensive and
requires a greater expenditure of human and technical resources as the
Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity on behalf of
Customers, but also the ATP Holder's relationship with its Customers
via more labor-intensive exam-based programs.\8\ As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., ATP
Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Section VII, Regulatory Fees, Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF''), available here, https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \7\ See id. The Exchange uses reports from OCC when assessing
and collecting the ORF. The ORF is not assessed on outbound linkage
trades. An ATP Holder is not assessed the fee until it has satisfied
applicable technological requirements necessary to commence
operations on NYSE American. See id.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that many of the Exchange's market
surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate
activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary
exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. The
Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2 agreement
allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities relating to
compliance by the common members with rules for expiring exercise
declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and Large
Option Position Report reviews. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 85097 (February 11, 2019), 84 FR 4871 (February 19,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORF Collections and Monitoring of ORF
    Exchange rules establish that the Exchange may only increase or
decrease the ORF semi-annually, that any such fee change will be
effective on the first business day of February or August, and that
market participants must be notified of any such change via Trader
Update at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the
change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Fee Schedule, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the ORF is based on options transactions volume, the amount
of ORF collected is variable. For example, if options transactions
reported to OCC in a given month increase, the ORF collected from ATP
Holders will likely increase as well. Similarly, if options
transactions reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF
collected from ATP Holders will likely decrease as well. Accordingly,
the Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collected to ensure that it
does not exceed the ORF Costs. If the Exchange determines the amount of
ORF collected exceeds costs over an extended period, the Exchange may
adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').
Temporary ORF Waiver
    Based on the Exchange's recent review of regulatory costs and ORF
collections, the Exchange proposes to waive the ORF from November 1,
2022 through January 31, 2023 in order to help ensure that the amount
collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and
fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The
Exchange proposes to resume assessing the ORF on February 1, 2023 at
the current rate of $0.0055 per contract. The Exchange notified ATP
Holders of the proposed change to the ORF via Trader Update on
September 29, 2022 (which was at least 30 calendar days prior to the
proposed operative date of the waiver, November 1, 2022) so that market
participants have an opportunity to configure their systems to account
for the waiver of the ORF. The Exchange's proposal to waive the ORF for
the month of January 2023 would similarly provide ATP Holders with
additional time in the new year to make any necessary adjustments or
preparations for the resumption of the ORF effective February 1, 2023.
    The proposed waiver is based on recent options volumes. The options
industry has continued to experience extremely high options trading
volumes and volatility, and options volume in 2022 remains high,
particularly when compared to options volume in 2019 and 2020. The
persisting increased options volumes have, in turn, impacted the
Exchange's ORF collection.
    For example, total average daily volume in 2022, to date, is 115%
higher than total average daily volume in 2019, and customer average
daily volume in 2022, to date, is 123% higher than customer average
daily volume in 2019. Below is industry data from OCC \10\ illustrating
the significant increase in options volume between 2019 and 2022:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
The volume discussed in this filing is based on a compilation of OCC
data for monthly volume of equity-based options and monthly volume
of ETF-based options, in contract sides.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2019            2020            2021            2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer ADV....................................      15,234,198      25,598,023      34,730,276      33,939,560
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total ADV...................................      35,083,673      55,369,993      74,339,870      75,497,647
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the below industry data from OCC demonstrates the high
options trading volumes (especially when compared to 2019 and 2020) and
volatility that the industry has continued to experience in 2022:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               April 2022    May 2022    June 2022    July 2022    August 2022   September 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer ADV................   33,266,801   34,202,077   31,469,858   30,506,706    33,013,156        34,149,000
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total ADV...............   73,140,597   76,254,734   70,628,926   68,535,963    73,487,342        77,134,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the sustained impact of the unprecedented trading
volumes that have persisted through 2021 and 2022, along with the
difficulty of predicting when volumes may return to more normal levels,
the Exchange proposes to waive the ORF from November 1, 2022 through
January 31, 2023 to help ensure that ORF collection will not exceed ORF
Costs for 2022. The Exchange cannot predict whether options volume will
remain at these levels going forward and projections for future
regulatory costs are estimated, preliminary, and may change. However,
the Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the ORF would allow
the Exchange to continue to monitor the amount collected from the ORF
to help ensure that ORF collection, in combination with other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs without the
need to account for any ORF collection during that timeframe. The
Exchange proposes to resume assessing the current ORF rate of $0.0055
per contract side as of February 1, 2023.
Semi-Annual Changes to ORF
    As noted above, the Fee Schedule currently specifies that the
Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually and that
any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of
February or August.\11\ NYSE American proposes to eliminate this
requirement to afford the Exchange increased flexibility in amending
the ORF.\12\ Although the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
requirement to adjust the ORF only semi-annually, it would continue to
submit a proposed rule change for each modification of the ORF and
notify ATP Holders of any planned change to the ORF by Trader Update at
least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of such change. The
Exchange believes that the prior notification to ATP Holders will
provide guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF and ensure
that ATP Holders are prepared to configure their systems to properly
account for the ORF. The Exchange will also issue a Trader Update
informing ATP Holders of the ORF adjustment proposed in this filing, as
described below, at least 30 calendar days prior to the proposed
effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Fee Schedule, supra note 6.
    \12\ The Exchange notes that at least one other options exchange
has previously removed this requirement with respect to adjusting
the ORF. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76950
(January 21, 2016), 81 FR 4687 (January 27, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-
003) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Options Regulatory Fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 2019 ORF
    The Exchange proposes to delete language in the Fee Schedule
pertaining to the August 2019 ORF, which was relevant only for the
August 30, 2019 trading day and thus no longer reflects a fee currently
assessed by the Exchange. The Exchange believes this change would
improve the clarity of the Fee Schedule by removing obsolete language.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \13\ of the Act, in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) and (5) \14\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes the proposed temporary waiver of the ORF is
reasonable because it would help ensure that collections from the ORF
do not exceed a material portion of the Exchange's ORF Costs. As noted
above, the Exchange may only use regulatory funds such as ORF ``to fund
the legal, regulatory, and surveillance operations'' of the
Exchange.\15\ In this regard, the ORF is designed to recover a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's ORF Costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there can be no assurance that the Exchange's final costs
for 2022 will not differ materially from its expectations and prior
practice, nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options
volume will remain at the current level going forward, the Exchange
believes that the amount collected based on the current ORF rate, when
combined with regulatory fees and fines, may result in collections in
excess of the estimated ORF Costs for the year. Particularly, as noted
above, the options market has continued to experience unanticipated and
elevated volumes in 2022, particularly as compared to 2019 and 2020,
due in large part to the continued extreme volatility in the
marketplace as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This unprecedented
spike in volatility, which has persisted through 2021 and 2022,
resulted in significantly higher volume than was originally projected
by the Exchange, thereby resulting in substantially higher ORF
collections than projected (particularly as compared to ORF Costs which
had been projected to decrease in 2022). The Exchange therefore
believes that it would be reasonable to waive ORF from November 1, 2022
through January 31, 2023 to help ensure that ORF collection does not
exceed the ORF Costs for 2022.\16\ Particularly, the Exchange believes
that waiving the ORF from November 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023 and
taking into account all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and
fines would allow the Exchange to continue covering a material portion
of ORF Costs, while lessening the potential for generating excess funds
that may otherwise occur using the current rate. The Exchange would
resume assessing its current ORF ($0.0055 per contract) as of February
1, 2023. The Exchange also believes that resumption of the ORF at the
current rate on February 1, 2023 (unless the Exchange determines it
necessary to adjust the ORF rate to help ensure that ORF collections do
not exceed ORF Costs) is reasonable because it would permit the
Exchange to resume collecting an ORF that is designed to recover a
material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected ORF Costs.
The Exchange would continue monitoring in advance of the resumption of
the ORF and when ORF collection resumes on February 1, 2023 and, if the
Exchange determines that, in light of projected volumes and ORF Costs,
the ORF rate should be modified to help ensure that ORF collections
would not exceed ORF Costs, adjust the ORF by submitting a filing a
proposed rule change and notifying ATP Holders of such change by Trader
Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange's proposal to also waive the ORF for the month
of January 2023 would provide ATP Holders with additional time in
the new year to make any necessary adjustments or preparations for
the resumption of the ORF effective February 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of language
specifying that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF
semi-

annually and that any such fee change must be effective on the first
business day of February or August is reasonable because it is designed
to afford the Exchange increased flexibility in making necessary
adjustments to the ORF, as the Exchange is required to monitor the
amount collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with
its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Costs. The
Exchange also believes the proposed change is reasonable because the
Exchange will continue to provide market participants with 30 days
advance notice of changes to the ORF, thereby providing ATP Holders
with adequate time to make any necessary adjustments to accommodate the
change.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed deletion of language
relating to the August 2019 ORF is reasonable because it would remove
obsolete language and thus improve the clarity of the Fee Schedule.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposal is an equitable allocation of
fees among its market participants. The Exchange believes that the
proposed waiver would not place certain market participants at an
unfair disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a
clearing firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all,
a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the
entering firms. Because the ORF is collected from ATP Holder clearing
firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE American, the Exchange believes that
using options transactions in the Customer range serves as a proxy for
how to apportion ORF Costs among such ATP Holders. In addition, the
Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoring ATP Holders with
respect to Customer trading activity are generally higher than the
costs associated with monitoring ATP Holders that do not engage in
Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating ATP Holders that engage in
Customer trading activity is generally more labor intensive and
requires a greater expenditure of human and technical resources as the
Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity on behalf of
Customers, but also the ATP Holder's relationship with its Customers
via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., ATP
Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. Thus, the
Exchange believes that a temporary waiver of the ORF is an equitable
allocation of fees because it would apply equally to all ATP Holders on
all their transactions that clear in the Customer range at the OCC. The
Exchange also believes that recommencing the ORF on February 1, 2023 at
the current rate, unless the Exchange determines it necessary to adjust
the ORF to ensure that ORF collections do not exceed ORF Costs, is
equitable because the Exchange would resume assessing an ORF designed
to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected
ORF Costs, and the ORF would likewise resume applying equally to all
ATP Holders on options transactions in the Customer range.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to eliminate
the requirement that the Exchange modify the ORF only semi-annually in
February or August is equitable because the change would impact all ATP
Holders subject to the ORF uniformly, and all ATP Holders would
continue to receive at least 30 days' advance notice of changes to the
ORF. The proposed change to remove language relating to the August 2019
ORF is also equitable because it would eliminate language from the Fee
Schedule that is no longer applicable to any ATP Holders.
The Proposed Fee Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the
ORF would not place certain market participants at an unfair
disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a clearing
firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a
portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the
entering firms. Because the ORF is collected from ATP Holder clearing
firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE American, the Exchange believes that
using options transactions in the Customer range serves as a proxy for
how to apportion regulatory costs among such ATP Holders. In addition,
the Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoring ATP Holders
with respect to Customer trading activity are generally higher than the
costs associated with monitoring ATP Holders that do not engage in
Customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less
labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating ATP Holders that engage in
Customer trading activity is generally more labor intensive and
requires a greater expenditure of human and technical resources as the
Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity on behalf of
Customers, but also the ATP Holder's relationship with its Customers
via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result, the costs
associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's
overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs
associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., ATP
Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. Thus, the
Exchange believes the temporary waiver of the ORF and the proposed
modification of language relating to the Exchange's ability to modify
the ORF are not unfairly discriminatory because the changes would apply
to all ATP Holders subject to the ORF and the Exchange would provide
all such ATP Holders with 30 days' advance notice of planned changes to
the ORF. The Exchange also believes that recommencing the ORF on
February 1, 2023 at the current rate, unless the Exchange determines it
necessary to adjust the ORF to ensure that ORF collections do not
exceed ORF Costs, is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
would resume assessing an ORF designed to recover a material portion,
but not all, of the Exchange's projected ORF Costs, and the ORF would
resume applying equally to all ATP Holders based on their transactions
that clear in the Customer range at the OCC.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to eliminate the
semi-annual change requirement is not unfairly discriminatory because
the change would apply to all ATP Holders subject to the ORF.
Furthermore, all ATP Holders would continue to be notified of changes
to the ORF at least 30 days prior to the effectiveness of any such
change. The proposed change to remove language relating to the August
2019 ORF is also not unfairly discriminatory because it would eliminate
language from the Fee Schedule describing a fee that was effective only
for August 30, 2019 and thus no longer impacts any ATP Holders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change
would not impose an undue burden on

competition because the ORF is charged to all ATP Holders on all their
transactions that clear in the Customer range at the OCC; thus, the
amount of ORF imposed is based on the amount of Customer volume
transacted. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary waiver of
the ORF would not place certain market participants at an unfair
disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a clearing
firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a
portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the
entering firms. In addition, because the ORF is collected from ATP
Holder clearing firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE American, the
Exchange believes that using options transactions in the Customer range
serves as a proxy for how to apportion regulatory costs among such ATP
Holders. The Exchange also believes recommencing the ORF on February 1,
2023 at the current rate (unless the Exchange determines it necessary
at that time to adjust the ORF to ensure that ORF collections do not
exceed ORF Costs) would not impose an undue burden on competition
because it would permit the Exchange to resume collecting an ORF that
is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's projected ORF Costs and the ORF would, as currently, apply
to all ATP Holders on their options transactions that clear in the
Customer range at the OCC. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed change to remove the semi-annual requirement would not impose
any burden on competition because the change would impact all ATP
Holders subject to the ORF, and the Exchange will continue to provide
advance notice of changes to the ORF to all ATP Holders via Trader
Update. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to
eliminate language relating to the August 2019 ORF would not impact
intramarket competition because it would simply add clarity to the Fee
Schedule by removing text describing a fee that is no longer effective.
    Intermarket Competition. The proposed fee change is not designed to
address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed change is designed
to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities while
seeking to ensure that total collections from regulatory fees do not
exceed total regulatory costs and to promote clarity in the Fee
Schedule by deleting obsolete text.

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 is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change 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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-52, and should be submitted
on or before December 20, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25943 Filed 11-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P