and district as a result of the rate adjustments and the temporary
surcharge to District One traffic.

                                                     Table 37--Rate Adjustment by Area and District
                                                                 [$U.S.; Non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected revenue
                                                             2013 Pilotage     Rate change \9\     2014 Pilotage      Projected 2014     needed in 2014
                                                               rates \8\                             rates \10\     bridge hours \11\         \12\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1...................................................            $460.97             1.0250            $472.50              5,116         $2,417,285
Area 2...................................................             284.84             1.0250             291.96              5,429          1,585,032
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District One..................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          4,002,318
Area 4...................................................             205.27             1.0250             210.40              5,814          1,223,262
Area 5...................................................             508.91             1.0250             521.64              5,052          2,635,314
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Two..................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          3,858,576
Area 6...................................................             199.95             1.0250             204.95              9,611          1,969,800
Area 7...................................................             482.94             1.0250             495.01              3,023          1,496,427
Area 8...................................................             186.67             1.0250             191.34              7,540          1,442,677
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total, District Three................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          4,908,904
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some values may not total due to rounding.
\8\ These 2013 estimates are described in Table 16 of this NPRM.
\9\ The estimated rate changes are described in Table 33 of this NPRM.
\10\ 2014 Pilotage Rates = 2013 Pilotage Rates x Rate Change.
\11\ These 2014 estimates are detailed in Table 14 of this NPRM.
\12\ Projected Revenue needed in 2014 = 2014 Pilotage Rates x Projected 2014 Bridge Hours.

                                   Table 38--Derivation of Temporary Surcharge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Area 1                   Area 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Revenue Needed in 2014 \13\.........................               $2,417,285               $1,585,032
Surcharge Rate................................................                       3%                       3%
Surcharge Raised..............................................                  $72,519                  $47,551
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total Surcharge...........................................  .......................                 $120,070
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These estimates are described in Table 37 of this NPRM.

                           Table 39--Impact of the Proposed Rule by Area and District
                                             [$U.S: Non-discounted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional costs
                                      Projected revenue  Projected revenue      Temporary        or savings of
                                        needed in 2013     needed in 2014     surcharge \15\     this proposed
                                             \14\                                                     rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1..............................         $2,404,424         $2,417,285            $72,519            $85,380
Area 2..............................          1,569,160          1,585,032             47,551             63,423
    Total, District One.............          3,973,584          4,002,318            120,070            148,803
Area 4..............................          1,398,694          1,223,262  .................          (175,432)
Area 5..............................          2,596,484          2,635,314  .................             38,830
    Total, District Two.............          3,995,178          3,858,576  .................          (136,602)
Area 6..............................          2,281,673          1,969,800  .................          (311,873)
Area 7..............................          1,556,517          1,496,427  .................           (60,090)
Area 8..............................          1,780,829          1,442,677  .................          (338,152)
    Total, District Three...........          5,619,019          4,908,904  .................          (710,115)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some values may not total due to rounding.
\14\ These 2013 estimates are described in Table 27 of the 2013 NPRM.
\15\ These estimates are described in Table 38 of this NPRM.

    After applying the discretionary rate change in this NPRM, the
resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2013 and the
projected revenue in 2014 is the annual impact to shippers from this
proposed rule. This figure is equivalent to the total additional
payments or savings that shippers would incur for pilotage services
from this proposed rule. As discussed earlier, we consider a reduction
in payments to be a cost savings.
    The impact of the discretionary rate adjustment in this proposed
rule to shippers varies by area and district. The discretionary rate
adjustments would lead to affected shippers operating in District One
experiencing total cost increases of $28,733.56, and affected shippers
operating in District Two and District Three experiencing total cost
savings of $136,601.82 and $710,115.00, respectively. The savings that
accrue to shippers operating in District Two and District Three are the
result of an expected decrease in the demand for pilotage services.
    In addition to the rate adjustments, District One would also incur
a temporary surcharge of 3 percent to traffic for the duration of the
2014 season in order to recover training expenses incurred from 2012.
We estimate that this surcharge would generate $120,070. At the end of
the 2014 shipping season, we will account for the monies the surcharge
generates and make adjustments (debits/credits) to the operating
expenses for the following year.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Assuming our estimate is correct, we would credit District
One shippers $71,075 at the end of the 2014 season in order to
account for the difference between the total surcharges collected
($120,070) and the actual training expenses incurred by District One
pilots ($48,995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate an exact cost or savings per vessel is difficult
because of the variation in vessel types, routes, port arrivals,
commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during navigation, and
preferences for the extent of pilotage services on designated and
undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some owners and
operators would pay more and some would pay less, depending on the
distance and the number of port arrivals of their vessels' trips.
However, the additional savings reported earlier in this NPRM does
capture the adjustment the shippers would experience as a result of the
proposed rate adjustment. The overall impact of this NPRM would be a
cost savings to shippers of approximately $697,914 across all three
districts.
    This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the
statutory requirements to review the rates for pilotage services on the
Great Lakes, thus ensuring proper pilot compensation.
    Alternatively, if we imposed the new rates based on the new
contract data from AMOU, there would be an approximately 11 percent
decrease in rates across the system. This would have a larger effect on
industry, moving from a proposed cost savings of approximately $697,914
to a cost savings of approximately $2,367,640. Table 40 details
projected revenue needed to cover costs in 2014 if the discretionary
adjustment to pilotage rates as discussed in Step 7 of Part VI of this
preamble is not made. Table 41 details the additional costs or savings
by area and district as a result of this alternative proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ These 2014 estimates are detailed in Table 14 of this NPRM.

                                               Table 40--Alternative Rate Adjustment by Area and District
                                                                 [$U.S.; Non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2013 Pilotage                         2014 Pilotage      Projected 2014   Projected revenue
                                                                 rates           Rate change           rates        bridge hours \17\    needed in 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1...................................................            $460.97             0.8627            $397.66              5,116         $2,034,432
Area 2...................................................             284.84             0.8354             237.95              5,429          1,291,807
    Total, District One..................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          3,326,239
Area 4...................................................             205.27             1.0039             206.07              5,814          1,198,107
Area 5...................................................             508.91             0.8417             428.35              5,052          2,164,002
    Total, District Two..................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          3,362,109
Area 6...................................................             199.95             0.9966             199.27              9,611          1,915,207
Area 7...................................................             482.94             0.8539             412.39              3,023          1,246,659
Area 8...................................................             186.67             0.9024             168.45              7,540          1,270,140
    Total, District Three................................  .................  .................  .................  .................          4,432,006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some values may not total due to rounding.

                          Table 41--Alternative Impact of the Rule by Area and District
                                             [$U.S.; Non-discounted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional costs
                                      Projected revenue  Projected revenue      Temporary        or savings of
                                        needed in 2013     needed in 2014     surcharge \18\     this proposed
                                             (A)                (B)                (C)           rule (B-A) + C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1..............................         $2,404,424         $2,034,432            $61,033         ($308,959)
Area 2..............................          1,569,160          1,291,807             38,754          (238,599)
    Total, District One.............          3,973,584          3,326,239             99,787          (547,558)
Area 4..............................          1,398,694          1,198,107  .................          (200,587)
Area 5..............................          2,596,484          2,164,002  .................          (432,482)
    Total, District Two.............          3,995,178          3,362,109  .................          (633,069)
Area 6..............................          2,281,673          1,915,207  .................          (366,466)
Area 7..............................          1,556,517          1,246,659  .................          (309,858)
Area 8..............................          1,780,829          1,270,140  .................          (510,689)
    Total, District Three...........          5,619,019          4,432,006  .................        (1,187,013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some values may not total due to rounding.

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

    \18\ The temporary surcharge generated under this alternative is
expected to be less than under the proposed alternative. This is a
result of a substantial decrease in projected revenue due to the
lower Projected Pilotage Rates for 2014 under this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reject this alternative because a substantial rate decrease
would jeopardize the ability of the three pilotage associations to
provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service as well as
violate the Memorandum of Arrangements, which calls for the United
States' and Canada's pilotage rates to be comparable. See our
discussion of Step 7 in Part VI of this preamble for further
explanation.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 people.
    We expect that entities affected by the proposed rule would be
classified under the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code subsector 483--Water Transportation, which includes the
following 6-digit NAICS codes for freight transportation: 483111-Deep
Sea Freight Transportation, 483113-Coastal and Great Lakes Freight
Transportation, and 483211-Inland Water Freight Transportation.
According to the Small Business Administration's definition, a U.S.
company with these NAICS codes and employing less than 500 employees is
considered a small entity.
    For the proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and
ownership data from 2010-2012 Coast Guard MISLE data and business
revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources such as
MANTA and Reference USA. We found that large, foreign-owned shipping
conglomerates or their subsidiaries owned or operated all vessels
engaged in foreign trade on the Great Lakes. We assume that new
industry entrants would be comparable in ownership and size to these
shippers.
    There are three U.S. entities affected by the proposed rule that
receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilot
associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great
Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and
one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated with
the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size standards
described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees; combined, they
have approximately 65 total employees. We expect no adverse impact to
these entities from this proposed rule because all associations receive
enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the
projected number of bridge hours and pilots.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it

qualifies, as well as how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Todd Haviland,
Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax 202-372-
1914. 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.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This
proposed rule would not change the burden in the collection currently
approved by the OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes
Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132. Our analysis is explained below.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services.'' 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is issued
pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of state law as outlined in
46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or political
subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any requirement on
pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or local governments
are prohibited from regulating within this category. Therefore, the
rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption
requirements in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard invites State and local governments and
their representative national organizations to indicate their desire
for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by
submitting comments to this NPRM. In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the Coast Guard will provide a federalism impact statement to
document: (1) The extent of the Coast Guard's consultation with State
and local officials who submit comments to this proposed rule; (2) a
summary of the nature of any concerns raised by State or local
governments and the Coast Guard's position thereon; and (3) a statement
of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have
been met. We will also report to the Office of Management and Budget
any written communications with the States.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 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 E.O. because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action.
Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O.
13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
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 proposed rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' section of this preamble. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(a)
of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor regulatory
changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. This proposed rule
adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory
mandates. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR part 401 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 46 CFR
401.105 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

0
2. In Sec.  401.400, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  401.400  Calculation of pilotage units and determination of
weighting factor.

* * * * *
    (b) Weighting Factor Table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighting
                  Range of pilotage units                      factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-49......................................................          1.0
50-159....................................................          1.15
160-189...................................................          1.30
190-and over..............................................          1.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
3. Add new Sec.  401.401 to read as follows:

Sec.  401.401  Surcharges.

    To facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and for good
cause, the Director may authorize surcharges on any rate or charge
authorized by this subpart. Surcharges must be proposed for prior
public comment and may not be authorized for more than one year.
0
4. In Sec.  401.405, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (a), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Basic rates and charges on the St. Lawrence River and
Lake Ontario.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Service                        St. Lawrence River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pilotage......................  $19.22 per kilometer or $34.02 per
                                       mile \1\.
Each Lock Transited.................  426 \1\.
Harbor Movage.......................  1,395 \1\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence
  River is $931, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is
  $4,084.

    (b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Service                           Lake Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-hour Period...........................................            $872
Docking or Undocking....................................             832
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
5. In Sec.  401.407, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (b), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.407  Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable
waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Lake Erie
                                                  (east of
                    Service                      Southeast     Buffalo
                                                   Shoal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-hour Period.................................         $849         $849
Docking or Undocking..........................          653          653
Any point on the Niagara River below the Black          N/A        1,667
 Rock Lock....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Toledo or any
                                                                                point on Lake                         Detroit Pilot
                    Any point on or in                      Southeast Shoal      Erie west of      Detroit River           Boat         St. Clair River
                                                                               Southeast Shoal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of Southeast Shoal..             $2,397             $1,417             $3,113             $2,397                N/A
Port Huron Change Point..................................          \1\ 4,176          \1\ 4,837              3,137              2,441              1,735
St. Clair River..........................................          \1\ 4,176                N/A              3,137              3,137              1,417
Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River..................              2,397              3,113              1,417                N/A              3,137
Detroit Pilot Boat.......................................              1,735              2,397                N/A                N/A              3,137
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat.

0
6. In Sec.  401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  401.410  Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior; and the St. Mary's River.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Lakes Huron
                         Service                           and Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-hour Period...........................................            $708
Docking or Undocking....................................             672
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Area                                    De Tour        Gros Cap       Any harbor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gros Cap........................................................          $2,648             N/A             N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.....           2,648             997             N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel            2,219             997             N/A
 Corporation Wharf..............................................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI............................................           2,219             997             N/A
Harbor Movage...................................................             N/A             N/A            $997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Service                           Lake Superior
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-hour Period..........................................             $601
Docking or Undocking...................................              571
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  401.420  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  401.420 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the text ``$126'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$129''; and remove the text ``$1,972'' and add, in its
place, the text ``$2,021'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the text ``$126'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$129''; and remove the text ``$1,972'' and add, in its
place, the text ``$2,021''; and
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the text ``$744'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$763''; and in paragraph (c)(3), remove the text ``$126''
and add, in its place, the text ``$129'', and remove the text
``$1,972'' and add, in its place, the text ``$2,021''.

Sec.  401.428  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  401.428, remove the text ``$744'' and add, in its place,
the text ``$763''.

    Dated: July 31, 2013.
Rajiv Khandpur,
Acting Director, Marine Transportation Systems Management, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2013-19209 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46046-46047]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15870]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157; FRL-10012-73-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Area Attainment
Plan for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the
comment period for a document published in the Federal Register on June
12, 2020. EPA is reopening the comment period based on the Clean Air
Council's request for a 30-day extension. Clean Air Council's request
seeks an extension of the comment period until August 13, 2020.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published June 12, 2020
(85 FR 35852), is reopened. The EPA must receive comments on or before
August 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0157 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods for comments on this
proposed approval of the Allegheny County Area PM2.5 plan,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Rehn can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA proposed to approve portions of a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on September 30, 2019 by
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on
behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). The SIP
submittal (also referred to as ``the Allegheny County PM2.5
Plan'') addresses Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') requirements for
the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Allegheny
County Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area (``Allegheny County
area''). EPA's June 12, 2020 document proposed to fully approve all
elements of the plan except for those addressing contingency measure
requirements and motor vehicle emissions budgets, which EPA proposed to
conditionally approve.
    EPA is reopening the comment period based on a request by Clean Air
Council for a 30-day extension of the comment period. Clean Air
Council's request, which is in the docket \1\ for this matter, seeks an
extension of the comment period until August 13, 2020. Their
justification for such an extension included the complexity of the plan
and EPA's proposed action, substantial changes to the plan made by ACHD
following public comment at the local level, and the fact that EPA's
proposed rule's July 13, 2020 close of comment period occurs at a
similar time as those of several other state and Federal actions
related to air quality in the area, for which comments are due on or
around the same time. After reviewing these arguments, EPA has decided
to reopen the comment period to August 13, 2020. All comments received
on or before August 13, 2020 will be entered into the public record and
considered by EPA before taking final action on the proposed rule.
Comments submitted between the close of the original comment period and
the re-opening of this comment period will be accepted and considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-
0157.

    Dated: July 17, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-15870 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 57598-57599]
[DOCID:fr29se06-146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54488; File No. SR-SCCP-2006-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Stock Clearing Corporation of
Philadelphia; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Definition of a Margin Member

 September 22, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on August 14, 2006, Stock
Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia (``SCCP'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have
been prepared primarily by SCCP. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend the definition of ``margin
member'' in SCCP Rule 1, Definitions, to accommodate the proposed
introduction of equity Market Makers on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange
(``Phlx'') and to reflect the proposed introduction of Phlx's new
equity trading system, XLE, which will replace Phlx's equity trading
floor.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54329 (August 17, 2006),
71 FR 50482, (August 25, 2006) [File No. SR-Phlx-2006-43].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, SCCP included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. SCCP 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 parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to conform SCCP's Rules
to the proposed change that the Phlx is making to its market structure
through the introduction of XLE and market makers. Phlx has proposed to
eliminate its equity trading floor and to replace it with an electronic
trading system, XLE, which will provide for the entry, display,
ranking, routing, and execution of orders in NMS stocks \4\ for its
members and member organizations (``XLE Participants''). As proposed by
Phlx, the current equity specialists would be replaced by market
makers, a type of XLE Participant, which would be liquidity providers
on XLE.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \5\ As proposed by Phlx, not every security on XLE will require
a market maker. However, if a market maker or multiple market makers
choose to register in a security, they must provide a two-sided
market in that security on XLE during regular trading hours (usually
9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) of the security. Therefore, some securities on
XLE may have no market makers or may have one or more market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCCP Rule 1, Definitions, currently defines ``margin members'' as
SCCP participants that are Phlx specialists, alternate specialists, or
other Phlx floor members specifically approved by the National
Securities Clearing Corporation to effect trading in a margin account.
Margin members that clear and settle their transactions through SCCP's
``omnibus clearance and settlement account'' at NSCC receive margin
accounts from SCCP.\6\ SCCP expects that many of its current margin
members

that are Phlx specialists, alternate specialists, or other Phlx floor
members would become XLE Participants, including market makers, upon
approval of XLE. This proposed rule change would amend the definition
of margin member in SCCP's rules to add the term market maker \7\ and
to remove the word floor from the term Phlx floor member. This would
allow SCCP members that are currently margin members under Rule 1 of
SCCP's rules to maintain their status as margin members following
Phlx's transition to XLE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SCCP Rule 9, Margin Accounts.
    \7\ The proposed rule change File No. SR-Phlx-2006-43 would
define the term ``market maker'' in Phlx Rule 1, Definitions,
paragraph (m). It would also add new rules 170 through 174 to set
forth the registration requirements, rights, and obligations of Phlx
market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCCP believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act \8\ because the proposed rule change is designed
to allow current SCCP Margin Members to maintain their status as they
transition from the current floor based trading environment on Phlx to
an electronic trading system, XLE, and would thereby promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system
for the prompt and accurate clearance of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-SCCP-2006-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-SCCP-2006-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of SCCP and on
SCCP's Web site at http://www.phlx.com/SCCP/memindex_sccpproposals.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-SCCP-2006-02 and should be submitted on or before October 20, 2006.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15984 Filed 9-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 865-867]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31602]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71211; File No. SR-CME-2013-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Changes To Amend CME Rule 971.C

December 31, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 23, 2013, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and
III below, which items have been prepared primarily by CME. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule changes from interested persons and to approve the
proposed rule changes 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 Changes

    CME proposes to make amendments to CME Rule 971 as part of an
industry wide initiative that is designed to further safeguard customer
funds held at the futures commission merchant (``FCM'') level.

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

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

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

    CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization 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 rule changes to CME
Rule 971 in coordination with the National Futures Association
(``NFA''). The proposed rule changes are part of a continuing futures
industry effort to enhance the protection of customer funds held at the
FCM level.
    In the fall of 2012, CME made a separate filing to introduce new
provisions in CME Rule 971.C. Under these rule changes, FCM clearing
members were required to provide the CME Audit Department, now named
the Financial and Regulatory Surveillance Department (``FRS''), with
view-only full access of segregated, secured, and Cleared Swaps
Customer accounts at a bank or trust company.
    When the 2012 rule changes were implemented, CME and NFA had
engaged a third party vendor, Alphametrix360, LLC, to facilitate CME's
and NFA's view only internet based access to relevant account
information. CME is proposing to make certain amendments to the text of
Rule 971.C for the purpose of allowing clearing members to be able to
submit account information through multiple mediums. These proposed
changes simply delete the phrases ``view only full'' and ``via the
internet'' in the current rule text to effect these changes.
    In addition, CME also proposes to make certain additional
amendments to CME Rule 971.C to expand these reporting requirements to
include all applicable customer depositories under CFTC Regulations.
FRS will first expand its reporting requirement to include FCM customer
carrying broker balances. Additionally, the expansion is anticipated to
continue and subsequently will include Clearing House customer
balances. The amended language provides FRS the flexibility to phase in
these additional depositories, and is also intended to harmonize
industry requirements as similar rules have been proposed and adopted
by NFA effective as of September 6, 2013.\3\ NFA and CME have allocated
implementation responsibilities for these changes and both have been
working closely with the FCM community regarding the implementation of
these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.nfa.futures.org/news/PDF/CFTC/FR_4_081513.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CME would like to operationalize the proposed changes on December
31, 2013, pending applicable regulatory reviews and approvals. CME
believes it is appropriate to grant this filing on an accelerated basis
because the proposed changes are part of an industry wide

initiative that is specifically targeted at protecting investors and
furthering the public interest through adoption of requirements that
help safeguard customer funds held at the FCM level. Currently, CME
receives relevant customer account information through one medium. The
proposed changes would facilitate regulatory access to relevant
customer account information through additional mediums. Obtaining
access to additional data through these new mediums will enable CME to
more effectively discharge its regulatory obligations. Having access to
an expanded pool of customer account information will allow for a more
effective daily confirmation of relevant funds; a failure to have such
access yields a less effective process. CME's effective administration
of its regulatory function in this regard will help to further
safeguard customer assets and will ultimately benefit investors.
Further, NFA and CME have allocated implementation responsibilities for
the implementation of these changes in the futures industry and have
been working closely with the FCM community to ensure these
enhancements to the daily segregation monitoring system are adopted to
further safeguard customer assets. NFA submitted corresponding rule
changes to CFTC for a September 6, 2013 effective date. CME's proposed
rule changes are intended to apply these changes to the firms for which
CME is the DSRO to ensure that both NFA and CME can collect relevant
balance information in the manner described above. CME believes this
wider futures industry context in combination with the investor
protection purpose of these proposed changes justifies treatment of
this filing on an accelerated basis.
    CME has also made a filing with the CFTC, CME Submission 13-453,
with respect to the proposed changes.
    CME believes the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act. First, CME, a derivatives clearing
organization, is implementing the proposed changes in accordance
Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') as part of an effort to harmonize
futures industry requirements in conjunction with the National Futures
Association, which has already adopted corresponding rules that went
effective as of September 6, 2013. The CEA contains a number of
provisions that are comparable to the policies underlying the Exchange
Act, including, for example, promoting market transparency for
derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of
transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
    More importantly, CME believes the proposed changes are
specifically designed to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed changes involve enhancements to requirements that provide a
self-regulatory organization with access to the customer accounts held
at banks for the purpose of discharging regulatory obligations. As
such, the proposed enhancements are clearly designed to bolster
safeguarding of customer funds held at the FCM level and protect
investors. Further, the proposed changes are part of a larger,
coordinated futures industry effort to safeguard customer funds.
Because the proposed changes are designed to enhance regulatory
requirements related to self-regulatory organization access to customer
accounts and are also part of an industry-wide plan initiated for the
purpose of further safeguarding investor funds, CME believes the
changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act
because they are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of CME or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule changes will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The rule changes merely
amend existing language in CME's rulebook for the purpose of enhancing
access to customer accounts for regulatory purposes as part of a larger
industry effort to safeguard customer funds.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding these proposed rule changes. 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
changes are 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 No. SR-CME-2013-37 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-2013-37. 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 changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes 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-2013-37
and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2014.

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

    Section 19(b) of the Act \5\ directs the Commission to approve
proposed rule changes of a self-regulatory organization

if it finds that such proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. The Commission finds that the proposed
rule changes are 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.\6\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
contracts and transactions, and to protect investors and the public
interest because the proposed changes involve enhancements to FCM
clearing member reporting requirements that provide CME, in its
capacity as a self-regulatory organization, with access to customer
accounts held at depositories for the purpose of discharging its
regulatory obligations and are designed to further safeguard customer
assets in the custody or control of the FCM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. In approving these proposed rule changes,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its filing, CME requested that the Commission approve these
proposed rule changes on an accelerated basis for good cause shown
because the proposed changes are part of an industry wide initiative
that is specifically designed to protect investors and the public
interest through adoption of requirements that help safeguard customer
funds held at the FCM level.
    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\8\ for approving the proposed rule changes 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
make the rule changes discussed above as part of an industry wide
initiative that is specifically designed to protect investors and the
public interest through adoption of requirements that help safeguard
customer funds held at the FCM level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-CME-2013-37) be, and hereby
are, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31602 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9926-9927]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Meeting: RTCA Program Management Committee (PMC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of the RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 17, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.
The agenda will include the following:

Thursday, March 17, 2016

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Review/Approve
    a. Meeting Summary December 15, 2015
3. Publication Consideration/Approval
    a. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-350--Safety and Performance
Standard for Baseline 2 ATS Data Communications, Vol 1 and Vol 2,
prepared by SC-214
    b. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-351--Interoperability Standard
For Baseline 2 ATS Data Communications via the ATN, Vol 1 and Vol 2,
prepared by SC-214
    c. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-352--Interoperability Standard
For Baseline 2 ATS Data Communications, FANS 1/A Accommodation,
prepared by SC-214
    d. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-353--Interoperability Standard
For Baseline 2 ATS Data Communications, ATN Baseline 1 Accommodation,
prepared by SC-214
    e. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-213 and DO-213 Change 1--
Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Nose-Mounted Radomes,
prepared by SC-230
    f. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-220 and DO-220 Change 1--
Minimum Operational Performance Standard (MOPS) for Aircraft Weather
Radar Equipment, prepared by SC-230
    g. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-93--Minimum Operational
Performance Standard (MOPS) for Airborne Selective Calling Equipment,
prepared by SC-232
4. Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)
    a. US and EUROCAE Studies--Update
    b. Need for IP Standards--Update
5. Past Action Item Review
    a. Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware--
Status--Possible New Special Committee (SC) to Update RTCA DO-254
    b. Runway Overrun Alerting--Status--possible new SC
    c. Avionics Intra Communication--possible new Special Committee
(SC)--Discussion
    d. DO-262 Change 1--Update
    e. Letter to Mr. Chambers' Family referencing DO-230F Dedication--
Update
    f. Initial Xu SC-147 Meeting--Update
6. Discussion
    a. SC-216--Aeronautical Systems Security--Discussion--Revised TOR
    b. SC-225--Rechargeable Lithium Battery and Battery Systems--
Discussion--Status Update
    c. SC-229--406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs)--
Discussion--Revised TOR
    d. SC-234--Portable Electronic Devices--Discussion--Revised TOR
    e. SC-235--Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries--Discussion--Revised
TOR
    f. NAC--Status Update
    g. TOC--Status Update

    h. Equip 2020--Update Presentation
    i. FAA Actions Taken on Previously Published Documents--Report
    j. Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports and Active Inter-Special
Committee Requirements Agreements (ISRA)--Review
    k. European/EUROCAE Coordination--Status Update
    l. RTCA Award Nominations--Consideration/Approval of Nominations
7. Other Business
8. Schedule for Committee Deliverables and Next Meeting Date
9. New Action Item Summary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-04207 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51610-51612]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Distracted Driving Grant Program

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).

ACTION: Notice of funding availability.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the recently enacted Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), the Department of Transportation (DOT)
announces the availability of funding authorized in the amount of
$17.525 million in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013 funds to provide
grants to States for enacting and enforcing distracted driving laws.
The FY 2013 funds are subject to an annual obligation limitation that
may be established in appropriations law. Therefore, the amount
available for the grants in FY 2013 may be less than the amount
identified above.
    A State's distracted driving law must meet statutorily-specified
criteria in order for the State to receive a grant. States that are
awarded grants also must follow post-award grant requirements. This
notice describes the statutorily-specified criteria, the application
requirements and the administrative requirements for the Distracted
Driving Grant Program.
    The Department is publishing this notice to give States an
opportunity to submit applications for the newly authorized distracted
driving grants as soon as possible in FY 2013. Funds for this grant
program are authorized beginning on October 1, 2012.

DATES: To receive a grant under the Distracted Driving Grant Program, a
State must submit an application by the deadline established by the
Secretary. Applications for FY 2013 distracted driving grants must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 9, 2012. Applications
received after that date will not be considered. Applications will not
be accepted on a rolling basis after the deadline.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted electronically to the
following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Only applications
submitted to that email address will be deemed properly filed.
Instructions for submitting applications are included in Section IV
(Application Process).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For legal issues: Ms. Jin Kim,
Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For program issues: Dr. Maggi Gunnels, Associate
Administrator, Regional Operations and Program Delivery, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Eligibility
III. Qualification Requirements
IV. Application Process
V. Program Funding and Award
VI. Use of Grant Funds
VII. Administration
VIII. Additional Information

I. Background

    In 2010, there were nearly 33,000 motor-vehicle related deaths on
our Nation's highways. Driving while distracted is a deadly habit that
contributes to a significant portion of that total, with 3,000 lives
lost in crashes where distraction was a factor. The epidemic of
distracted driving is one of our greatest highway safety challenges.
    On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the ``Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141,
which created a new distracted driving grant program. MAP-21 authorizes
the Secretary of Transportation to provide incentive grants to States
that enact and enforce laws prohibiting distracted driving. MAP-21
authorizes funding beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2013. The
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) oversees State highway safety programs on behalf of the
Secretary, including application, review, award and administration of
grants.
    MAP-21 authorizes $22.525 million in FY 2013 for the Distracted
Driving Grant Program from the Highway Trust Fund. See 23 U.S.C.
405(a)(1)(D). Of this amount, up to $5 million may be expended for the
development and placement of broadcast media to support the enforcement
of State distracted driving laws. After reserving $5 million for
broadcast media support, $17.525 million is authorized in FY 2013 to
provide grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(e) (hereinafter ``Section 405(e)'').
However, since these FY 2013 grant funds are subject to an annual
obligation limitation, the amount of available funds for the FY 2013
grants may be less.

II. Eligibility

    The Distracted Driving Grant Program, as enacted by MAP-21, derives
its definition of ``State'' from 23 U.S.C. 401. In accordance with 23
U.S.C. 401, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam
and the Virgin Islands (``the States'') are eligible to apply for
distracted driving grants.

III. Qualification Requirements

    A. General. In FY 2013, a State may qualify for a grant under
Section 405(e) in one of two ways. A State may qualify by having a
comprehensive primary enforcement distracted driving law (hereinafter
``Distracted Driving Grant''). See Section III.B. Alternatively, in the
first year only, a State may qualify by having a primary enforcement
texting law if the State is ineligible for a Distracted Driving Grant
(hereinafter ``First-Year Texting-Ban Grant''). See

Section III.C. The basis for an award under this grant program is a
State statute that complies with the criteria set out in Section
405(e). (See Sections B and C and the permitted exceptions and
definitions below for an outline of the provisions.)
    Permitted exceptions. In accordance with MAP-21, a State statute
may provide for the following exceptions and still meet the
qualification requirements for a grant (either as a Distracted Driving
Grant or a First-Year Texting-Ban Grant)--
     A driver who uses a personal wireless communications
device to contact emergency services;
     Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless
communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and
engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services
personnel; and
     An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle
driver or a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless
communications device within the scope of such individual's employment
if such use is permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to
section 31152 of title 49.
    No other exceptions are permitted under MAP-21.
    Definitions. Section 405(e) defines certain terms. The operation of
the State statute must be consistent with the following definitions:
     ``Driving'' means operating a motor vehicle on a public
road, including operation while temporarily stationary because of
traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise; and does not
include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to
the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location
where it can safely remain stationary.
     ``Personal wireless communications device'' means a device
through which personal wireless services (as defined in section
332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted, but does not include a global
navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency
notification, or navigation purposes.
     ``Primary offense'' means an offense for which a law
enforcement officer may stop a vehicle solely for the purpose of
issuing a citation in the absence of evidence of another offense.
     ``Public road'' has the meaning given such term in 23
U.S.C. 402(c).
     ``Texting'' means reading from or manually entering data
into a personal wireless communications device, including doing so for
the purpose of SMS texting, emailing, instant messaging, or engaging in
any other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data
communication.
    In addition, Section 405(e) requires States to enforce the law in
order to qualify for a grant. While Section 405(e) does not define the
term ``enforce,'' we will use the definition that DOT has historically
used in similar programs (e.g., Public Law 109-59, Section 2005). In
order to meet the requirement that the State enforce a statute, the law
must not only be enacted but be in operation, allowing citations to be
issued. Therefore, a law that has a future effective date or that
includes a provision limiting enforcement (e.g., by imposing written
warnings) during a ``grace period'' after the law goes into effect
would not be deemed in effect or being enforced until the effective
date is reached or the grace period ends. A State whose law is either
not in effect or contains a ``grace period'' or ``warning period'' on
the due date for grant applications (see ``Dates'' section above) will
not qualify for a FY 2013 grant under this program.
    B. Distracted Driving Grant. In order to qualify for a Distracted
Driving Grant, a State must have enacted and be enforcing a statute
that meets all the requirements set out in Section 405(e), as outlined
below:
    (1) Prohibition on texting while driving. The State statute must--
    (a) Prohibit drivers from texting through a personal wireless
communications device while driving;
    (b) Make violation of the statute a primary offense; and
    (c) Establish--
    (i) a minimum fine for a first violation of the statute; and
    (ii) increased fines for repeat violations.
    (2) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The State
statute must--
    (a) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age from
using a personal wireless communications device while driving;
    (b) Make violation of the statute a primary offense;
    (c) Require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the
State's driver's license examination; and
    (d) Establish--
    (i) a minimum fine for a first violation of the statute; and
    (ii) increased fines for repeat violations.
    C. First-Year Texting-Ban Grant. In the first year only of this
grant program, a State that is ineligible for a Distracted Driving
Grant (Section III.B) may qualify for a First-Year Texting-Ban Grant if
the State has enacted a primary enforcement texting law before July 6,
2012. Specifically, the State statute must--
    (1) Prohibit drivers from texting through a personal wireless
communications device while driving; and
    (2) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense.

IV. Application Process

    A. Application Contents. The DOT Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments, found at 49 CFR part 18, directs applicants to use
standard application forms or those prescribed by the granting agency
with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Accordingly, States interested in
applying for Section 405(e) grant funds in FY 2013 must submit Standard
Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance, signed by the
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety. Please see
www07.grants.gov/assets/SF424Instructions.pdf for instructions on how
to complete the SF 424.
    As a part of an attachment to SF 424, applicants must specify the
grant for which the applicant is applying (Distracted Driving Grant or
First-Year Texting-Ban Grant), and identify the State statute (by
citation), including each provision of the State statute that meets
each of the qualification requirements for a Section 405(e) grant.
    Applications must be submitted electronically to the following
Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Only applications submitted to
that Email address will be deemed properly filed.
    B. Application Deadline. For FY 2013 Distracted Driving Grants or
First-Year Texting-Ban Grants, grant applications must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 9, 2012. Late applications will not
be considered.
    C. Application Review. DOT will review each application and State
statute to verify compliance with all of the provisions of Section
405(e). DOT reserves the right to seek clarification from any applicant
about the information in its application, but expects applications to
be complete upon submission. Applicants will be notified of award by
letter to the Governor.

V. Program Funding and Award

    As noted above, MAP-21 authorizes $22.525 million in FY 2013 for
the Distracted Driving Grant Program. See 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(D). In
the first fiscal year of this program, MAP-21 provides that DOT may
award up to 25 percent of the amount available for Section

405(e) grants to those States that have enacted a primary enforcement
texting-ban law before July 6, 2012, and are otherwise ineligible for a
grant under this program (i.e., First-Year Texting-Ban Grant). See 23
U.S.C. 405(e)(6). Therefore, subject to the availability of funds, DOT
intends to make available approximately $5.6 million for First-Year
Texting-Ban Grants in FY 2013 (Section III.C). In FY 2013, DOT further
intends to reserve $5 million of the amount available for Section
405(e) grants for broadcast media support, as is authorized in MAP-21.
See 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(7). Accordingly, subject to the availability of
funds, of the $17.525 million reserved in FY 2013 to provide grants
under Section 405(e), DOT intends to make available approximately $11.9
million for Distracted Driving Grants (Section III.B) and approximately
$5.6 million for First-Year Texting-Ban Grants (Section III.C).
    Section 405(e) does not specify how distracted driving grants are
to be allocated among the qualifying States. Four of the six grant
programs authorized in MAP-21 Section 31105 (Occupant Protection, State
Traffic Safety Information System, Impaired Driving Countermeasures and
Graduated Driver Licensing Laws) allocate grant funds in proportion to
the State's apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402 for FY 2009. DOT will use
this process to allocate grant funds to States under both parts of this
grant program (Distracted Driving Grants and First-Year Texting-Ban
Grants), consistent with past practice in a number of highway safety
grant programs. In addition, consistent with limitations in some other
highway safety programs, a cap of 10 percent of the total amount
authorized for FY 2013 Section 405(e) will apply to each grant award.
The amount of funds awarded to a State under this program will depend
on the grant for which a State is applying and the total number of
States qualifying for each type of grant under the program.

VI. Use of Grant Funds

    A. Eligible uses of grant funds. MAP-21 stipulates that each State
that receives a Section 405(e) grant must use at least 50 percent of
the grant funds (1) to educate the public through advertising
containing information about the dangers of texting or using a cell
phone while driving; (2) for traffic signs that notify drivers about
the distracted driving law of the State; or (3) for law enforcement
costs related to the enforcement of the distracted driving law. See 23
U.S.C. 405(e)(5)(A). The remaining grant funds, but no more than 50
percent, may be used for any eligible project or activity under 23
U.S.C. 402. See 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(5)(B).
    B. Matching requirement. MAP-21 Section 31105 does not specify a
Federal share for the activities funded by the Distracted Driving Grant
Program. However, 23 U.S.C. 120 specifies a Federal share of 80 percent
for any project or activity carried out under Title 23. Because the
Distracted Driving Grant Program is a program under Title 23, the
Federal share is 80 percent.

VII. Administration

    The requirements of 49 CFR part 18, the Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments, govern the implementation and management of grants awarded
under the Distracted Driving Grant Program. For ease of administration,
States may fulfill financial and reporting requirements through the
processes (e.g., vouchering, reporting) applied to the other highway
safety grants in Title 23, Chapter 4. This includes the requirement
that qualifying States submit a plan explaining, by countermeasure
area, how awarded grant funds will be used, including those that will
be used to address distracted driving and those that will be used for
eligible projects under 23 U.S.C. 402.

VIII. Additional Information

    Beginning with FY 2014 grants, July 1 of the prior year is the
single application deadline for highway safety program grants and
national priority program grants. See MAP-21 Sections 31101 and 31102.
While DOT is publishing this notice to give States an opportunity to
submit applications for these newly authorized grants in FY 2013, in
the near future, DOT intends to issue regulations implementing highway
safety program grants and national priority safety program grants under
Sections 402 and 405 for FY 2013 and 2014, as applicable. DOT intends
to award Distracted Driving Grants under Section 405(e) for FY 2014 and
future years pursuant to the single application process to be set forth
in those upcoming regulations.

    Authority: Public Law 112-141, Section 31105(e); 23 U.S.C.
405(e) (as set forth in MAP-21); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
Sec. Sec.  1.94 and 1.95.

    Issued on: August 17, 2012.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20926 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P