[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84629-84631]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28189]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79345; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Adopt a New Exception in Exchange Rule 1000(f) for Sub-
MPV Split-Price Orders

November 17, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 3, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to provide an
additional exception to the mandatory use of the Exchange's Floor
Broker Management System (``FBMS'') pursuant to Rule 1000(f)(iii) to
permit Floor Brokers to execute certain sub-minimum price increment
(``sub-MPV'') split-price orders in the trading crowd. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August
22, 2016.\3\ On October 3, 2016, the Commission extended the time
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to November 20, 2016.\4\
The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order
institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \5\ to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78593 (August 16,
2016), 81 FR 56724 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79023 (October 3,
2016), 81 FR 69877 (October 7, 2016).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Currently, Phlx Rule 1000(f) requires that all Exchange options
transactions be executed in one of the following three ways: ``(i)
[a]utomatically by the Exchange Trading System pursuant to Rule 1080
and other applicable options rules; (ii) by and among members in the
Exchange's options trading crowd none of whom is a Floor Broker; or
(iii) through the Options [FBMS] for trades involving at least one
Floor Broker.'' \6\ Although a Floor Broker may represent orders in the
trading crowd, a Floor Broker is not permitted to execute an order in
the trading crowd unless one of three exceptions applies.\7\ The
exceptions to the mandatory use of FBMS \8\ are set forth in Phlx Rule
1000(f)(iii). These exceptions allow a Floor Broker to execute a
transaction in the trading crowd (rather than through FBMS) if: (i)
there is a problem with Exchange's systems; (ii) the Floor Broker is
executing the trade pursuant to Phlx Rule 1059 (``Accommodation
Transactions'') or Phlx Rule 1079 (``Flex Index, Equity and Currency
Options''); or (iii) the transaction involves a multi-leg order with
more than 15 legs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Phlx Rule 1000(f).
    \7\ See Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii).
    \8\ The original FBMS (``FBMS 1'') began operating in 2005. The
Exchange retired FBMS 1 on March 31, 2016 after operating it
concurrently with the Exchange's enhanced FBMS (``FBMS 2''), which
was made available on March 7, 2014. As of March 31, 2016, FBMS 2 is
available to all Floor Brokers in all options and is the only FBMS
currently in use. The Exchange represents that it has contracted
with a third-party to build an alternative system (``FBMS 3'') to
replace FBMS 2, and anticipates that FBMS 3 will be ready by
November 30, 2016. See Notice, supra note 3, at 56725.
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726; see also Phlx Rule
1000(f)(iii)(A)-(C). According to the Exchange, each time a Floor
Broker uses one the current exceptions to Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii),
the Floor Broker is required by Phlx Rule 1063(e)(ii), to record the
information required by Phlx Rule 1063(e)(i) on paper trade tickets.
The Exchange further represents that a Floor Broker may only
represent an order for execution that has been time stamped with the
time of entry on the trading floor. In addition, according to the
Exchange, once an execution occurs, the trade ticket must be stamped
with the time of execution of such order. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 56726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B) provides a priority rule regarding open
outcry split price transactions in equity options and options overlying
ETFs to permit a member who is responding to an order for at least 100
contracts who buys (sells) at least 50 contracts at a particular price
to have priority over all other orders in purchasing (selling) up to an
equivalent number of contracts of the same order at the next lower
(higher) price without being required to yield to existing customer
interest in the limit order book.\10\ Absent Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B),
such orders would be required to yield priority. The Exchange states
that ``the purpose behind the split-price priority exception was `to
bring about the execution of large orders, which by virtue of their
size and the need to execute them at multiple prices may be difficult
to execute

without a limited exception to the priority rules.' '' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726 (citing Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 51820 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35759 (June
21, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-28)) (approving pilot). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55993 (June 29, 2007), 72 FR 37301 (July 9,
2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-44) (permanent approval).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, split-price orders are currently
processed using either FBMS 2 or paper tickets, depending on whether
the split-price order can be evenly split using simple calculations or
whether the transaction involves non-even integers and sub-MPV price
points, thus requiring a more complicated computation to determine the
number of contracts to trade at two different price points.\12\ The
Exchange represents that FBMS 2 does not have the capability to
calculate specific volumes at different prices for transactions
resulting from split-price orders.\13\ To compensate for this system
limitation, the Exchange is proposing to amend Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)
to add a new exception from the mandatory use of FBMS that would
expressly authorize Floor Brokers to execute certain split-price orders
in the trading crowd. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing in Phlx
Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D) to allow the following split-price orders to be
executed in the trading crowd: (1) simple orders not expressed in the
applicable sub-MPV and that cannot be evenly split into two whole
numbers to create a price at the midpoint of the MPV; and (2) complex
and multi-leg orders with at least one option leg with an odd-numbered
volume that must trade at a sub-MPV price or one leg that qualifies
under (1) above.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726. Today, when the
computation is more complicated, surveillance staff allows a Floor
Broker to execute split-price orders involving non-even integers and
sub-MPV price points in open outcry using paper tickets pursuant to
Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(A). See id.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56726.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56724.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes that, in addition to split-price orders
executed pursuant to proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D), Phlx
surveillance staff would approve all executions submitted under Phlx
Rule 1000(f)(iii) to validate that such executions abide by applicable
priority and trade-through rules.\15\ The Exchange also proposes to
round prices if necessary to execute the trade at the MPV, but only to
the benefit of a customer order, or, where multiple customer orders are
involved, for the customer order that is earliest in time.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii).
    \16\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii); see also Notice, supra
note 3, at 56727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-Phlx-
2016-82 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\17\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail
below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
comment on the proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis
of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\18\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceeding to allow for additional
analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency
of the proposed rule change with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed,
among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers,\20\ and with the Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also provides that
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule
change must be concluded within 180 days of the date of publication
of the notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. The time
for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended for up to 60 days
if the Commission finds good cause for such extension and publishes
its reasons for so finding. See id.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ The Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets
Plan is available at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/clearing/services/options_order_protection_plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, under the Commission's rules of procedure, a self-
regulatory organization that proposes to amend its rules bears the
burden of demonstrating that its proposal is consistent with the
Act.\22\ In this regard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 700(b)(3), 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).

the description of the proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
the applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and
specific to support an affirmative Commission finding. Any failure
of the self-regulatory organization to provide the information
elicited by Form 19b-4 may result in the Commission not having a
sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to the self-regulation
organization.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with respect to the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
invites written views of interested persons concerning whether the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by December 14, 2016. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
December 28, 2016. The Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the
proposed rule change, in addition to any other comments they may wish
to submit about the proposed rule change. The Commission notes that
Phlx states that ``rounding of prices is used only where necessary to
execute a trade at the MPV, and only to the benefit of a customer
order. . . .'' \25\ The Commission seeks commenters' views on the
Exchange's statements, which are set forth in the Notice,\26\ regarding
how

the Exchange would round prices for split-price orders, particularly
when no customer orders are involved, in addition to any other comments
they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. The Commission
seeks comment on whether this aspect of the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5), which requires, among other things, that a proposed
rule change not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 56724.
    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C.78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is concerned that the Exchange has not made clear
what the time of execution would be for split-price orders executed
manually by Floor Brokers pursuant to the exception proposed in Phlx
Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D) or how Floor Brokers would use paper tickets to
execute split-price orders under the proposed exception. The Commission
seeks commenters' views on the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements
regarding the execution of a split-price order by a Floor Broker
pursuant to the proposed exception under Phlx Rule 1000(f)(iii)(D). In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan.
    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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-82 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-82. The 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-82 and should be
submitted on or before December 14, 2016. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by December 28, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28189 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50790]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 271-128]

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 24, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of license.
    b. Project No: 271-128.
    c. Date Filed: July 30, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Carpenter-Remmel Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Lakes Hamilton and Catherine on the Quachita River in
Hot Springs and Garland Counties, Arkansas.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Blake Hogue,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: October 26, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (licensee)
requests a license amendment that would delegate authority for dredging
and excavation activities to the licensee, for up to 500 cubic yards of
material. Prior to filing of the application, the licensee consulted
with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas
Department of Parks & Tourism, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23657 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8564-8566]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0088; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-179-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by testing of the spoiler electronic
control unit (SECU) software for an upgrade, which revealed a timing
error between the command and monitor channels. This proposed AD would
require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate
repetitive operational tests of the aileron disconnect system, and
corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would also require
modification and reidentification of the SECU, which would terminate
the repetitive operational tests. We are proposing this AD to prevent a
timing error in the SECU software, which, in combination with failure
of the roll disconnect switch, could result in complete loss of spoiler
functionality and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0088; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Service Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0088;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-179-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-24, dated August 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-

100-1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During testing of the software for an upgrade of the spoiler
electronic control unit (SECU), a timing error between the Command
and Monitor channels was found in the SECU software. This timing
error, if not corrected, in combination with the failure of the roll
disconnect switch, may lead to a complete loss of spoiler
functionality and result in a reduction or complete loss of
aeroplane roll control.
    This [TCCA] AD mandates the SECU software modification to
correct the timing error and to change the inspection interval for a
maintenance task based on System Functional Hazard Analysis [by
revising the inspection or maintenance program.]

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0088.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 100-27-16, dated
October 31, 2013. The service information describes procedures for
modification and reidentification of the SECU. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably
available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with
these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed
by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions
described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR
91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method
of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request
should include a description of changes to the required inspections
that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 107 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take up to 6 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be up to $54,570, or
up to $510 per product.
    We have received no definitive data on the parts cost for doing the
modification in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0088; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-179-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 6, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10
(Challenger 300) airplanes, equipped with a spoiler electronic
control unit (SECU) having part number (P/N) C47330-006, C47330-007,
or C47330-008; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by testing of the spoiler electronic
control unit (SECU) software, which revealed a timing error between
the command and monitor channels in the software. We are issuing
this AD to prevent a timing error in the SECU software, which, in
combination with failure of the roll disconnect switch, could result
in complete loss of spoiler functionality and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 600 flight hours since the most recent operational test
of the aileron disconnect system for spoiler functionality as of the
effective date of this AD, or within 400 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
repetitive operational tests of the aileron disconnect system for
spoiler functionality, and all

applicable corrective actions, using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Guidance on operational
tests of the aileron disconnect system can be found in the BD-100-
1A10 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Manual.

(h) Modification of the SECU

    Within 1,600 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Modify and re-identify the SECU,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 100-27-16, dated October 31, 2013. Doing the
actions required by this paragraph terminates the actions required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
SECU, P/N C47330-006, C47330-007, or C47330-008, on any airplane.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-24, dated August 5,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-FAA-2015-0088.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 2, 2015.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02695 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 37762-37766]
[DOCID:fr11jy07-89]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2007-0355; FRL-8338-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collections;
Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Request for Comments on Proposed
Renewals of Form R (EPA ICR No. 1363.15, OMB Control No. 2070-0093 )
and Form A Certification Statement (EPA ICR No. 1704.09, OMB Control
No. 2070-0143)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit a request
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew existing approved
Information Collection Requests (ICRs) for the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) reporting Form R and the Form A Certification Statement. Both
ICRs are scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Before submitting the
ICRs to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting public comments
on the proposed information collections, incorporating proposed minor
changes, as described in this notice.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to EPA on or before September 10,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
TRI-2007-0355, by one of the following methods:
    (1) U.S. Government Web site for Federal Rulemaking, http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
    (2) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (5) Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operations: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: To submit a comment to the docket, direct your
comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2007-0355. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public

docket without change and will be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information that has been

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that is
considered to be CBI or otherwise protected information through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comments. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. When preparing electronic
files, avoid using special characters or any form of encryption and
ensure that the electronic files to be submitted are free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cassandra Vail, Toxics Release
Inventory Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access,
Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 2844T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460; phone number,<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number,<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket?

    EPA has established a public docket for the ICRs described in this
notice under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2007-0355, which is available for
online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 to obtain a copy of the proposed collections of
information, to submit or view public comments, to obtain an index of
the docket contents, and to obtain those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then enter the docket ID number identified in this
document.
    The docket is also available for viewing in person at the OEI
Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), U.S. EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The phone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the phone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

In Which Information Is EPA Particularly Interested?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it
to:
    (1) 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;
    (2) 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;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) 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 the electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
    EPA is also particularly interested in comments regarding the
changes the Agency is proposing to the TRI reporting forms and
instructions. See below for a description of the changes that EPA is
proposing to make to the ICRs for TRI (i.e., under section ``Are There
Changes in the Burden Estimates from the Last Approval?'').

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    (1) Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples;
    (2) Describe any assumptions that you used;
    (3) Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you
used that support your views;
    (4) If you estimate the potential burden hours or labor costs,
explain how you arrived at your estimates;
    (5) Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity;
    (6) Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES; and
    (7) To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the docket ID number
assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your
response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register
citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    This notice provides information on the proposed renewal of two
ICRs: One for the TRI Form R (EPA ICR No. 1363.15, OMB Control No.
2070-0093) and the other for the TRI Form A Certification Statement
(EPA ICR Number 1704.09, OMB Control Number 2070-0143). Both forms are
used extensively throughout the reporting community.
    Affected Entities: Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires owners/operators of
facilities that meet all of the following criteria to report to the TRI
Program:
    (1) The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours or greater; see 40 CFR 372.3); and
    (2) The facility is included in an industry sector that is covered
by the statute (based on SIC/NAICS codes); and
    (3) The facility manufactures (defined to include importing),
processes, or otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 chemical in
quantities greater than the established threshold in the course of the
calendar year.
    Federal facilities are also required to report to the TRI Program,
as indicated in the instructions and requirements for implementing
Executive Order 13423, ``Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management.''
    Title: Agency Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collections; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Request for Comments on
Proposed Renewals of Form R (EPA ICR No. 1363.15, OMB Control No 2070-
0093) and Form A Certification Statement (EPA ICR Number 1704.09, OMB
Control Number 2070-0143).
    ICR Status: The ICRs for the TRI Form R and the TRI Form A
Certification

Statement are scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008.
    Abstract: EPCRA section 313 requires owners and operators of
certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of
certain listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories in excess of
applicable threshold quantities to report annually to EPA and the
states in which such facilities are located on their environmental
releases and transfers of and other waste management activities for
such chemicals. In addition, section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA) requires facilities to provide information on the quantities
of the toxic chemicals in waste streams and the efforts made to reduce
or eliminate those quantities. Annual reporting under EPCRA section 313
and PPA section 6607 provides the public with a useful picture of the
total disposition of chemicals at the community level and helps
industrial facilities identify pollution prevention and source
reduction opportunities.
    This information, commonly known as the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI), is used extensively by EPA programs and the public. EPA program
offices use TRI data, along with other data, to help establish
programmatic priorities, evaluate potential exposure scenarios, and
undertake regulatory and enforcement activities. Environmental and
public interest groups also use the data to better understand toxic
chemical releases, to inform the public of toxic chemical releases at
the community level, and to engage the public and private sectors in
taking action to reduce toxic chemical releases. Industrial facilities
and industry associations also use the TRI data to evaluate the
efficiency of their production processes and to help monitor their
progress in achieving pollution prevention goals.
    The TRI data are unique in providing a multi-media picture of toxic
chemical releases, transfers, and other waste management activities to
air, water, and land from the local community level to the national
level on a yearly basis. While some media-specific toxic chemical data
and related permit data are available from other sources, the chemicals
and industry sectors covered, the reporting timeframes, and the degree
to which the data are publicly available are not directly comparable to
TRI, making it difficult to obtain as comprehensive a picture of toxic
chemical releases from other sources as is available from TRI. With
TRI, communities, government agencies, and industrial facilities have
easy access to quantitative information about the toxic chemicals that
are being released, transferred, or otherwise managed as waste at a
given location.
    Facilities that are subject to the TRI reporting requirements must
submit their reports for each calendar year by July 1st of the
following year. Responses to the collection of information are
mandatory (see 40 CFR part 372). Respondents may claim trade secrecy
for a chemical's identity as described in section 322 of EPCRA and its
implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 350. EPA will disclose
information that is covered by a claim of trade secrecy only to the
extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR
part 350 and 40 CFR part 2. 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. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The average time required for calculations, form
completion, and recordkeeping for Form R, incorporating all of the
proposed changes outlined below, is estimated to be 29.7 hours for a
non-PBT chemical and 51.4 hours for a PBT chemical. The average time
required for calculations, form completion, and recordkeeping for the
Form A Certification Statement for a single TRI-listed chemical,
incorporating all of the proposed changes outlined below, is estimated
to be 20.6 hours for a non-PBT chemicals and 36.0 hours for a PBT
chemical.
    Reporter burden is calculated as the total time, effort, and/or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information; processing and
maintaining information; disclosing and providing information;
adjusting existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements that have subsequently changed; training
personnel to respond to a collection of information; searching data
sources; completing and reviewing the collection of information; and
transmitting or otherwise disclosing the information.

Are There Changes in the Burden Estimates From the Last Approval?

    OMB approved the ICR for Form R and the ICR for the Form A
Certification Statement on March 3, 2006, with an expiration date of
January 31, 2008. The ICR for Form R approved at that time reflected a
respondent reporting burden of 3,746,590 hours and labor costs of
$170,500,000. The ICR for Form A approved at that time reflected a
respondent reporting burden of 259,192 hours and labor costs of
$11,919,489.
    Since the last ICR Renewals, EPA published the final TRI Burden
Reduction Rule (71 FR 76932; December 22, 2006), which broadened the
eligibility criteria for facilities that can utilize the shorter Form A
Certification Statement rather than the longer, more-detailed Form R.
The TRI Burden Reduction Rule is thus expected to reduce the number of
Form Rs and increase the number of Form A Certification Statements that
will be submitted by TRI-regulated facilities.
    On February 20, 2007, OMB approved new burden hour and labor cost
figures for the Form R and Form A Certification Statement, in response
to the final TRI Burden Reduction Rule. OMB's approvals indicated (1) a
decrease in the total burden hours for Form R from 3,746,590 to
3,344,292--a decrease of 402,298 hours for Form R; and (2) an increase
in the total burden hours for Form A from 259,192 to 538,688--an
increase of 279,496 hours for the Form A Certification Statement. OMB's
Terms of Clearance stated that the new burden hours reflect ``changes
in the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, which expands the eligibility for
Form A reporting. The increase of 279,496 hours in Form A is more than
offset by a 402,298 hour reduction in Form R, for a net burden
reduction of 122,802 hours.'' (Please note that the figures in the
2006-2008 ICRs, approved in March 2006, were based on the number of RY
2002 TRI forms, which was higher than the number of RY 2005 TRI forms;
therefore, the current estimates are higher than they would be if all
of the calculations had been based on RY 2005 data. The proposed ICRs
for 2008-2010 incorporate RY 2005 data in all of the calculations.)
    Utilizing the RY 2005 TRI reporting data and updated labor rates
throughout the analyses, EPA now estimates the total respondent burden
and labor costs for Form R (including the implementation of the TRI
Burden Reduction Rule) to be 3,215,715 hours and $160,730,000, not
including the proposed changes to the Form R which are outlined below.
The changes that the TRI Program is proposing to make to the Form R and
reporting instructions are expected to result in a total respondent
burden and cost for Form R of 3,216,246 hours and $160,760,000.
    Utilizing the RY 2005 TRI reporting data and updated labor rates
throughout

the analyses, EPA now estimates the total respondent burden and labor
costs for the Form A Certification Statement (including the
implementation of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule) to be 515,284 hours
and $25,985,056, not including the proposed changes to the form that
are outlined below. The changes that the TRI Program is proposing to
make to the Form A Certification Statement and reporting instructions
are expected to result in a total respondent burden and cost for Form A
of 517,311 hours and $26,062,859.
    For a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimates of the
respondent reporting burden and labor costs, please refer to the
proposed Supporting Statements for the Form R and the Form A
Certification Statement, which are available in the docket.
    EPA is proposing changes to the Form R and Form A Certification
Statement to standardize and enhance the utility of the data. More
specifically, the changes to the forms and instructions (described
below) will help the TRI Program better determine its impact on small
businesses, allow facilities to provide more detailed information on
how they estimate their data, facilitate efficient contact with the
appropriate facility personnel, and determine and better understand the
reasons for form revisions or withdrawals.
    1. Collect Small Business Information (Forms R and A). Add fields
to both the Form R and the Form A Certification Statement to collect
information on whether the reporting facility's parent company is a
small business, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
(If the facility does not have a parent company, small business
information would be collected on the facility itself and all of its
affiliates considered together.) Rationale: EPA strives to achieve an
appropriate balance between collecting valuable TRI data and reducing
the reporting burden on regulated facilities, including small
businesses. To date, it has been a time-consuming process to assess the
impact of TRI regulatory changes on small businesses, and in some
instances, the data needed to determine whether a facility is a small
business have not been available to EPA. By collecting small business
information about facilities directly on the TRI reporting forms, the
TRI Program will be better able to determine the impacts of potential
TRI regulatory changes on small businesses more quickly and accurately.
    2. Provide More Specific ``Basis of Estimate'' Codes (Form R only).
Provide more ``basis of estimate'' codes in the TRI Reporting Forms and
Instructions (RFI) for use on Form R which facilities can use to
indicate the principal method used to determine the quantities reported
to the TRI Program. Rationale: Facilities may currently select among
four codes to indicate how they calculate their release quantities: The
use of monitoring data (code M), mass balance calculations (C),
emission factors (E), and other approaches (O). EPA is proposing to
provide more specific codes in the RFI which would allow the facilities
to provide better information on the ``basis of estimate.'' For
example, with the proposed changes, facilities could use a different
code for continuous monitoring than for periodic or random monitoring.
In addition, the new set of codes would make the TRI ``basis of
estimate'' codes comparable to the codes used by the Canadian
government, thereby making it easier to analyze and compare data
between the United States and Canada.
    3. Enhance the Point of Contact Information (Form R and/or Form A,
as noted below).
    a. Provide a field on the Form R and Form A for ``Form Preparer,''
for use by a facility if the form preparer is a different individual
than the ``Technical Contact.'' Rationale: When questions arise about a
facility's data submission, the TRI Program may wish to contact the
facility to clarify the information. In a number of instances in the
past, TRI Program staff have contacted the ``Technical Contact'' listed
on a facility's form and been asked to contact another individual who
prepared the form on the facility's behalf. By adding a field for
``Form Preparer,'' the TRI Program staff will be able to contact the
appropriate individual depending on the nature of the question or
issue. The ``Form Preparer'' does not need to be the same individual as
either the ``Technical Contact'' or the individual who certifies and
signs the form, and the ``Form Preparer'' does not necessarily need to
be someone at the location of the reporting facility.
    b. Add an e-mail address field for the ``Public Contact'' to Form
R. Rationale: Providing an e-mail address will make it easier to
contact and follow-up with the ``Public Contact'' if necessary.
    c. Add a field for the ``Public Contact Name'' to Form A, along
with associated telephone number and e-mail address fields. Rationale:
Adding a ``Public Contact'' field to the Form A will provide the name
of a person who can respond to questions from the public about the Form
A Certification Statement. It will also make the Form A contact
information more consistent with the information provided on Form R.
    4. Add Boxes for Entering Revision Codes (Forms R and A). Provide
boxes on the Form R and Form A where up to two codes (which will be
listed and defined in the Reporting Forms and Instructions) can be
entered to indicate the main reason(s) that a form is being revised.
Rationale: The TRI Program currently receives many form revisions each
year, but does not currently collect information on the reasons for the
revisions. The new revision codes will allow both the public and the
TRI Program to better understand why a facility resubmitted a form. In
addition, by analyzing the reasons for revisions, the TRI Program may
be better able to address recurring reporting issues or problems that
facilities may be facing, ultimately reducing errors and saving time
for both the Agency and the reporting facilities.
    5. Provide a Field for Withdrawing a Form, and Add Boxes for
Entering Withdrawal Codes (Forms R and A). Provide a new field, along
with boxes where up to two codes can be entered, on the Form R and Form
A so that facilities can use the forms to withdraw a previous report,
if appropriate, and indicate the main reason(s) for the withdrawal.
Rationale: Currently, a facility that wishes to withdraw a previously
submitted form must submit its request, including the rationale, as a
hard copy memo to the TRI Data Processing Center via regular mail,
certified mail, or overnight delivery. The addition of a ``Withdrawal''
field and the associated code boxes to the Form R and Form A will make
it easier for the TRI Program to automate the withdrawal process and
then to analyze the reasons for withdrawals more efficiently.
    Taken together, the form changes described above will help the TRI
Program better determine its impact on small businesses, enhance the
information provided on estimation methods, facilitate contact with the
appropriate facility personnel, and better understand and analyze the
form revision and withdrawal processes. The total burden increase that
would result from the changes outlined above would be relatively small
compared to the overall information collection burden, and this small
increase would be negligible in comparison to the total burden
reduction that resulted from the final TRI Burden Reduction Rule. Based
on calculations using RY 2005 data, the total burden hours for the
2008-2010 ICRs (i.e., considering the Forms R and A together) would be
(1) reduced by 3.5% due to the final TRI Burden

Reduction Rule and (2) modestly increased by .16% due to the proposed
revisions of the reporting forms and instructions.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for These ICRs?

    EPA will consider the comments received on the proposed information
collections and revise the ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages
will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.12. At that time, EPA will publish another Federal Register notice
for each ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the
submission of the ICRs to OMB and the opportunity for the public to
submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about
these ICRs or the approval process, please contact the individual
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 3, 2007.
Mike Flynn,
Office Director, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of
Environmental Information.
 [FR Doc. E7-13425 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68869-68871]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27873]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68207; File No. SR-CME-2012-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Comply With CFTC Part 22 Regulations

November 9, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2012, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by CME. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons and to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME proposes to amend certain of its rules to comply with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Part 22 Regulations. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the CME's Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com, at the principal office of CME, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by CME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization (``DCO'')
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and operates a
substantial business clearing futures and swaps contracts subject to
the jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME proposes to make changes to CME Rules
802 and 901; CME Rules 8G04, 8G802, 8H04 and 8H802 to comply with the
CFTC's Part 22 Regulations. The compliance date for these Regulations
is November 14, 2012.\4\ CME will also make corresponding changes to
CME's Clearing House Manuals of Operation for Interest Rate Swaps and
CME's Clearing House Manuals of Operation for Credit Default Swaps to
account for the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The original compliance date for CFTC's Part 22 Regulations
was November 8, 2012. Subsequent to CME filing the proposed rule
change with the Commission, due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy,
the CFTC issued a no-action letter applicable for the period from
November 8, 2012, to November 13, 2012, which in effect delayed the
compliance date for the provisions of CFTC's Part 22 rules relevant
to this proposed rule change to November 14, 2012. See Commodity
Futures Trading Commission Letter No. 12-30, Staff No-Action Relief,
Temporary Delay of Compliance Date for Part 22 Rules Due to Effects
of Hurricane Sandy (October 31, 2012) (http://cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/12-30.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes are intended, among other things, to
implement CFTC requirements regarding the protection of cleared swaps
customer contracts and collateral which became effective on April 9,
2012. DCOs like CME are required to comply with these requirements by
November 14, 2012, as set forth in Part 22 of the CFTC Regulations.\5\
The CFTC Part 22 Regulations implement the new CFTC customer protection
model for cleared swaps customers--the legal segregation with
operational commingling model (``LSOC Model'' or ``Complete Legal
Segregation Model'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes also set forth new requirements for post-
default cleared swaps customer account processing. Under the proposed
process, upon the default of a clearing member, CME would cease netting
of settlement variation within the operationally commingled account and
calculate obligations to CME separately for each customer. As further
set forth in the rule, each cleared swaps customer would then be
required to pay directly to CME any obligations to CME associated with
its cleared swaps positions. Where appropriate, similar rules have been
adopted in the related sections of the default rules of each of CME's
three financial safeguard packages: base products, interest rate swaps
(``IRS'') and credit default swaps (``CDS'').
    The proposed changes to CME Rules 802 and 901 can be summarized as
follows:
     Rule 802.A harmonizes the definition of a clearing member
default with those in Rules 8G802.A and 8H802.A.
     Rule 802.B clarifies the approach the Clearing House may
take in liquidating any open contracts of a defaulted clearing member,
including book entry that offsets open commodity contracts on the books
of the defaulting clearing member; liquidation in the open market; and/
or one or more private auctions amongst qualified market participants
invited by the Clearing House to submit confidential bids.
     Rule 802.G sets forth new requirements for post-default
cleared swaps customer account processing, with the Clearing House
treating positions and collateral of a defaulting clearing member's
cleared swaps customers in accordance with Part 22 of the Commission's
regulations. The rule also requires the Clearing House to cease netting
of settlement variation in the cleared swaps customer account class
upon a clearing member default and discusses the processes that the
Clearing House would use to manage such customer accounts.
     New Rule 901.P provides that each Clearing Member would be
required to use systems and appropriate procedures to accurately track
and provide to the Clearing House the positions and collateral of each
of its cleared swaps customers.
    The proposed changes to CME Rules 8G802 and 8G04 can be summarized
as follows:
     Rule 8G802.A clarifies the rights of CME for the use of an
IRS Clearing Member's and its customer's collateral in the event of a
default of an IRS Clearing Member in conformity with the Part 22
regulations. Rule 8G802.A.1(i) would also harmonize the definition of a
clearing member default with rules 802.A and 8H802.A.
     Rule 8G802.B sets forth amended procedures for
establishing a close out

value for IRS contracts to be consistent with Part 22. Section B.3 of
the rule would provide for revised netting and offset provisions for
the final settlement cycle upon an IRS Termination Event.
     Rule 8G802.G is amended to remove the customer
mutualization within the customer account class for IRS to conform to
the Part 22 Regulations.
     Rule 8G802.I sets forth the new requirements for cleared
swaps customer account processing with CME after the default of an IRS
Clearing Member treating positions and collateral of a defaulting
clearing member's cleared swaps customers in accordance with Part 22 of
the Commission's regulations. The rule also requires CME to cease
netting of settlement variation in the cleared swaps customer account
class upon an IRS Clearing Member default and establishes processes for
CME to use to manage such customer accounts.
     New Rule 8G04.5 provides that each IRS Clearing Member
would be required to use systems and appropriate procedures to
accurately track and provide to CME the IRS positions and collateral of
each of its cleared swaps customers.
     The IRS Manual is also being revised to make conforming
changes related to the Part 22 regulations.
    The proposed changes to CME Rules 8H802 and 8H04.12 can be
summarized as follows:
     Rule 8H802.A clarifies the rights of CME for the use of a
CDS Clearing Member's and its customer's collateral in the event of a
default of a CDS Clearing Member in conformity with the Part 22
Regulations.
     Rule 8H802.B sets forth amended procedures for
establishing a close out value for CDS contracts to be consistent with
Part 22. Section B.3 of the rule would provide for revised netting and
offset provisions for the final settlement cycle upon a CDS Termination
Event.
     Rule 8H802.G is amended to remove the customer
mutualization of the customer account class for CDS to conform to the
Part 22 regulations.
     Rule 8H802.I sets forth the new requirements for cleared
swaps customer account processing with CME after the default of a CDS
Clearing Member treating positions and collateral of a defaulting
clearing member's cleared swaps customers in accordance with Part 22 of
the Commission's regulations. The rule also requires CME to cease
netting of settlement variation in the cleared swaps customer account
class upon the default of a CDS Clearing Member and establishes
processes for CME to use to manage such customer accounts.
     New Rule 8H04.12 provides that each CDS Clearing Member
would be required to use systems and appropriate procedures to
accurately track and provide to CME the CDS positions and collateral of
each of its cleared swaps customers.
     The CDS Manual is also being revised to make conforming
changes related to the Part 22 Regulations.
    CME proposes to make these rule changes effective on November 14,
2012. CME also made a filing, CME Submission 12-347, with its primary
regulator, the CFTC, with respect to the proposed rule changes.
    CME believes the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A. The rule
changes are being proposed to comply directly with the CFTC's Part 22
Regulations, which are designed to protect investors, or in CME's view,
are critical in facilitating CME's compliance with Part 22 (e.g., the
new provisions for post-default cleared swaps customer account
processing that require the Clearing House to cease netting of
settlement variation in the cleared swaps customer account class and
require each cleared swaps customer to pay directly to CME any
obligations to CME associated with its cleared swaps positions).\6\ As
such, the proposed changes are designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivatives agreements, contracts and transactions, to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency and, in general, help to protect
investors and the public interest. CME, a derivatives clearing
organization registered with the CFTC, further notes that it is
required to implement the proposed changes to comply with applicable
CFTC regulations. CME notes that the policies of the Commodity Exchange
Act (``CEA'') with respect to clearing are comparable to a number of
the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market
transparency for derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone conversation among Tim Elliot, Executive Director
and Associate General Counsel, CME; Jason Silverstein, Executive
Director and Associate General Counsel, CME; Gena Lai, Senior
Special Counsel, SEC; Justin Byrne, Attorney-Advisor, SEC; November
9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

III. 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2012-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-43. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for

inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's Web
site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-43
and should be submitted on or before December 7, 2012.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    Section 19(b) of the Act \7\ directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act, and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to CME.\8\ Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
registered clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible and to protect investors
and the public interest.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, CME requested that the Commission approve this
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis for good cause shown. CME
cites as the reason for this request that the proposed changes are
necessary to facilitate CME's compliance with new CFTC regulations that
become effective on November 14, 2012.
    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\10\ for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th
day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register
because, as a registered derivatives clearing organization, CME must
amend certain of its rules to comply with the CFTC's Part 22
Regulations that will become effective on November 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-CME-2012-43) be, and hereby is,
approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27873 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 70580]
[DOCID:fr12de07-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-441-001]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2007, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the
filing.
    Texas Gas states that the filing is being made in compliance with
the Commission's ``Order Issuing Certificates and Granting
Abandonment'' issued June 18, 2007 in Docket No. CP06-441-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 12, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24026 Filed 12-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1511-1513]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0549]

Safety Zones; Technical and Conforming Amendments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule makes non-substantive technical and conforming
amendments to a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part which will allow
the Coast Guard to include safety zones for non-mineral energy resource
facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf in that part. It reflects
amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act by the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated
public. It enables us to properly place newly authorized safety zones
in the same CFR part where other existing Outer Continental Shelf
safety zone regulations are located.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0549 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Alayna Ness, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Discussion of the Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule.
Under Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 553(b)(A),
the Coast Guard finds that this final rule is exempt from notice and
public comment rulemaking requirements because these changes involve
rules of agency procedure or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard
finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary for this final
rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this rule consists of only technical
and editorial corrections and these changes will have no substantive
effect on the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds
that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this final
rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

III. Basis and Purpose

    This final rule, which becomes effective on January 11, 2023, makes
technical and conforming amendments to title 33, part 147, of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). These non-substantive changes are
necessary to include safety zone regulations for non-mineral energy
activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in 33 CFR part 147.
This rule does not create or change any substantive requirements.
    This final rule is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a),
14 U.S.C. 102, and 43 U.S.C. 1333; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(90),
Revision No. 01.3; and authorities listed at the end of this rule for
the CFR part this rule amends.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing technical and conforming amendments to
the existing regulations in title 33, part 147, of the CFR. These
technical amendments provide the public with accurate and current
regulatory information as to where safety zones for certain OCS
facilities will be located in the CFR, but do not change the effect of
any Coast Guard regulations on the public. Our amendment to 33 CFR
147.10 is narrowly focused on allowing us to establish 33 CFR part 147
as the location for safety zones regulations for non-mineral energy
resource OCS facilities.
    On January 1, 2021, Congress enacted the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
(NDAA), Public Law 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388. Section 9503 of the NDAA
amended Section 4(a)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1333(a)(1)) to specifically include non-mineral energy
resources. The Coast Guard uses the affected statutory provisions as
authority for issuing safety zone regulations around offshore
facilities on the OCS. In Sec.  147.10, this rule redesignates
paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c) through (e), makes a
conforming amendment to an existing cross-reference in newly
redesignated paragraph (c), and adds a new paragraph (b). New paragraph
(b) explains that, for purposes of establishing safety zones under part
147, ``OCS facility'' includes non-mineral energy resource permanent or
temporary structures. The rest of part 147 is unchanged by this
technical amendment.

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 or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A regulatory
analysis follows.
    This rule involves non-substantive technical amendments and
internal agency practices and procedures; it will not impose any
additional costs and will provide qualitative benefits. The final rule
will simply amend our regulations to reflect existing statutory
authority under the 2021 NDAA to allow the Coast Guard to establish
safety zones for non-mineral development on the OCS and to help
identify where these safety zone regulations will be located in the
CFR. The rule will also add clarifying text in 33 CFR part 147 in
support of this change.
    The Coast Guard does not expect that there will be any additional
costs conferred on the public or the Federal Government, because none
of the technical and editorial changes included in this rule will
change existing regulatory requirements, and no safety zones on the OCS
will be directly established, removed, or otherwise modified by this
rule. The qualitative benefits of the non-substantive technical
amendments are increased clarity of regulations that will now reflect
recent amendments to 43 U.S.C. 1333. Hence, this rule will establish
that safety zone regulations for non-mineral energy resources OCS
facilities will be located in 33 CFR part 147.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    A notice of proposed rulemaking does not precede this rule.
Therefore, it is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Regulatory Flexibility Act does
not apply when notice and comment rulemaking is not required.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.

D. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, nor does it
impact an existing collection.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 Executive Order 13132 and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    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. Although this rule will not result
in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments),
because it will 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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under DHS Management Directive 023-01,
Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.
    This rule is categorically excluded under paragraphs A3 and L54 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
Paragraph A3 pertains to the promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings
or interpretations, and the development and publication of policies,
orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory circulars,
and other guidance documents of the following nature:
    (a) Those of a strictly administrative or procedural nature;
    (b) those that implement, without substantive change, statutory or
regulatory requirements;
    (c) those that implement, without substantive change, procedures,
manuals, and other guidance documents; and
    (d) those that interpret or amend an existing regulation without
changing its environmental effect.
    Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which are editorial or
procedural. This final rule involves a non-substantive technical and
conforming amendment to existing Coast Guard regulations.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--SAFETY ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  14 U.S.C. 544; 43 U.S.C 1333; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No.
01.3.

0
2. Amend Sec.  147.10 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c) through
(e);
0
b. Add new paragraph (b); and
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), remove the text ``paragraph
(c)'' and add, in its place, the text ``paragraph (d)''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  147.10  Establishment of safety zones.

* * * * *
    (b) For purposes of establishing safety zones under this part, OCS
facility includes non-mineral energy resource permanent or temporary
structures.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 4, 2023.
Michael Cunningham,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-00319 Filed 1-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P