[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61637-61640]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95986; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule

October 5, 2022
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 30, 2022, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal on October 3, 2022. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to modify the required criteria under the Step-Up Additive
Rebate.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to
which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on
publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange
currently has more than approximately 16.5% of the total market share
of executed volume of equities trading.\4\ Thus, in such a low-
concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow, and
the Exchange currently represents approximately 3% of the overall
market share.\5\ The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker''
model whereby it provides rebates to Members that add liquidity to the
Exchange and charges fees to Members that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. The Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and fees
applied per share for orders that add and remove liquidity,
respectively. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or lower fees where certain
volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an
incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market share percentage calculated as of September 29, 2022.
The Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently offers the Step-Up Additive Rebate under
which the Exchange provides an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share in
addition to the otherwise applicable rebate for a qualifying Member's
executions of certain orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per
share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange (``Added Displayed
Volume'').\6\ Currently, a Member qualifies for the Step-Up Additive
Rebate by achieving one of the following two alternative criteria: (1)
a Step-Up ADAV \7\ (excluding Retail Orders) from April 2022 that is
equal to or greater than 0.07% of the TCV; \8\ or (2) a Step-Up ADAV
from July 2022 that is equal to or greater than 0.05% of the TCV and an
ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the TCV. The Exchange
notes that the Step-Up Additive Rebate is

designed to encourage Members that add liquidity on the Exchange to
increase their liquidity-adding order flow, which benefits all Members
by providing greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Step-Up Additive Rebate applies to all executions of
Added Displayed Volume other than: (i) orders that establish the
national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') if such Member qualifies for
the Exchange's NBBO Setter Tier; and (ii) Retail Orders. A ``Retail
Order'' is an agency or riskless principal order that meets the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person
and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See
Exchange Rule 11.21(a).
    \7\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADAV'' means the average
daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added per day,
which is calculated on a monthly basis, and ``Step-Up ADAV'' means
ADAV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV.
    \8\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the required criteria such
that a Member would now qualify for the Step-Up Additive Rebate by
achieving one of the following two alternative criteria: (1) an ADAV
that is equal to or greater than 0.45% of the TCV; or (2) a Step-Up
ADAV from August 2022 that is equal to or greater than 0.10% of the TCV
and an ADAV that is equal to or greater than 0.30% of the TCV. Thus,
the proposed change would: (i) replace the first of the two alternative
criteria (i.e., the April 2022 Step-Up ADAV threshold) with an overall
ADAV threshold, and (ii) modify the second of such alternative criteria
(i.e., the July 2022 Step-Up ADAV and overall ADAV thresholds) to
increase the Step-Up ADAV threshold, reference a more recent baseline
month for such threshold, and keep the overall ADAV threshold intact.
As the proposed new alternative criteria are based on Step-Up ADAV and/
or overall ADAV thresholds, such criteria are intended to encourage
Members to maintain or increase their liquidity-adding order flow,
thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit
of all Members. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed new criteria will impact Member activity,
the Exchange expects that more Members will strive to qualify for such
tier than currently qualify, resulting in the submission of additional
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange is not proposing to change the
rebate provided under the Step-Up Additive Rebate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the
Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The
Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference
for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to new or different pricing structures being
introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants
can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at
those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the
proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure
designed to incentivize market participants to direct additional order
flow, including liquidity-adding orders, to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance liquidity and market quality on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members.
    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have
been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are
open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits
or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's
market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such
as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery process. The Exchange believes that the Step-Up Additive
Rebate, as modified by the proposed changes to the required criteria
under such tier, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for these same reasons, as such tier would continue to
provide Members with an incremental incentive to achieve certain volume
thresholds on the Exchange, is available to all Members on an equal
basis, and, as described above, is designed to encourage Members to
maintain or increase their order flow, including liquidity-adding
orders, to the Exchange in order to qualify for an additive rebate for
certain executions of Added Displayed Volume, thereby contributing to a
deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all Members. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to the required
criteria under the Step-Up Additive Rebate reflect a reasonable and
equitable allocation of fees and rebates, as the Exchange believes that
the additive rebate for qualifying executions of Added Displayed Volume
under such tier remains commensurate with the corresponding required
criteria under such tier and is reasonably related to the market
quality benefits that such tier is designed to achieve, as described
above. That is, such additive rebate reasonably reflects the difficulty
in achieving the corresponding criteria, as modified.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \12\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As
described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction
pricing is subject to significant competitive forces, and that the
proposed fees and rebates described herein are appropriate to address
such forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above,
the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct
additional order flow, including liquidity-adding orders, to the
Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the
Exchange to the benefit of all Members. As a result, the Exchange
believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market
that attracts

actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue
for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would
incentivize Members to submit additional order flow, including
liquidity-adding orders, to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity
and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as
well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading
venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to
encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the
Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more
trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders
to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity,
which benefits all market participants. The opportunity to qualify for
the proposed new alternative criteria under the Step-Up Additive
Rebate, and thus receive the additive rebate for qualifying executions
of Added Displayed Volume, would continue to be available to all
Members that meet the associated volume requirements in any month. As
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed new required
criteria under such tier remain commensurate with the additive rebate
provided for qualifying executions of Added Displayed Volume under such
tier and are reasonably related to the enhanced liquidity and market
quality that such tier is designed to promote. For the foregoing
reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative
trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no
single registered equities exchange currently has more than
approximately 16.5% of the total market share of executed volume of
equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into
the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to executions of
Added Displayed Volume, and market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As
described above, the proposed changes represent a competitive proposal
through which the Exchange is seeking to encourage additional order
flow, including liquidity-adding orders, to the Exchange through a
volume-based tier, which have been widely adopted by exchanges,
including the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal
would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition by
enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that offer similar
pricing incentives to market participants.
    Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \14\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the DC Circuit stated as follows:
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . .
As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and
sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-
routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders
for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\15\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed pricing changes impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 11.
    \15\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \17\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MEMX-2022-29 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-MEMX-2022-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2022-29 and should be submitted on
or before November 2, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22082 Filed 10-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46353-46356]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18568]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0575; FRL 9914-88-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS29

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Extension of Compliance
and Attest Engagement Reporting Deadlines for 2013 Renewable Fuel
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to extend two reporting deadlines for the 2013 compliance
period under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This action
specifically affects the annual compliance and attest engagement
reporting requirement deadlines for regulated parties. The annual
compliance reports and attest engagement reports for the 2013 RFS
compliance period will not be due until 30 days and 90 days,
respectively, following publication of the final rule establishing the
2014 renewable fuel percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in the
Federal Register. This action ensures timely amendment of existing
deadlines, before compliance obligations would otherwise go into
effect.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 29, 2014 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by September 15, 2014.
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal notice in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0575, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0575. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without

going through www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia MacAllister, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the public information line for
the Office of Transportation and Air Quality; telephone number (734)
214-4333; Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposed rule to extend certain reporting requirement deadlines
for the 2013 RFS compliance period if adverse comments are received on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this direct final rule are those
involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation
fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel. Potentially regulated categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Examples of potentially regulated
                 Category                   NAICS \1\ Codes    SIC \2\ Codes                entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................            324110              2911  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry.................................            325193              2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry.................................            325199              2869  Other basic organic chemical
                                                                                manufacturing.
Industry.................................            424690              5169  Chemical and allied products
                                                                                merchant wholesalers.
Industry.................................            424710              5171  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                                terminals.
Industry.................................            424720              5172  Petroleum and petroleum products
                                                                                merchant wholesalers.
Industry.................................            454319              5989  Other fuel dealers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your activities would be regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

III. Background and Purpose

    The EPA is today taking action to amend existing regulatory
deadlines for regulated parties under the RFS program regarding the
submission of annual compliance reports and attest engagement reports
for the 2013 RFS compliance period.
    We received comments on our November 29, 2013 proposed rulemaking
to establish the 2014 renewable fuel percentage standards for
cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel \1\ reiterating the importance to obligated parties of
knowing their RFS obligations for the 2014 RFS compliance period prior
to the compliance demonstration deadline for the 2013 RFS compliance
period. The EPA recognized the value of this timing to obligated
parties in the 2013 RFS final rule, and for that reason delayed the
normally applicable February 28 compliance demonstration deadline to
June 30, 2014 for the 2013 RFS compliance period.\2\ We reasoned at
that time that an extension to June 30, 2014 would be sufficient in
light of the expected date of issuance of the final rule establishing
the 2014 renewable fuel percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel,
biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 78 FR 71732 (November 29, 2013).
    \2\ 78 FR 49794, 49800 (August 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the 2014 renewable fuel standards were not final at the
time the annual compliance reports for the 2013 RFS compliance period
were coming due, we further extended this reporting deadline until
September 30, 2014 (as well as the associated deadline for attest
engagement reports until January 30, 2015).\3\ However, in light of the
further delay in issuing the final rule establishing the 2014 renewable
fuel

percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel,
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, we are issuing this direct
final rule (with a parallel proposal in the event that we receive
adverse comments) providing an additional extension of the annual
compliance and attest engagement reporting deadlines for the 2013 RFS
compliance period. Regulated parties will not have to submit annual
compliance reports and attest engagement reports for the 2013 RFS
compliance period until 30 days and 90 days, respectively, following
publication of the final rule establishing the 2014 renewable fuel
percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel,
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 79 FR 34242 (June 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new information collection requirements associated
with this rulemaking. The extension of the existing regulatory
deadlines for regulated parties under the RFS program imposes no new or
different reporting requirements on regulated parties. The existing
information collection requests (ICR) that apply to the RFS program are
sufficient to address the reporting requirements in the regulations.
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule amends the
existing regulatory deadlines for regulated parties under the RFS
program to submit reports demonstrating their compliance with the 2013
RFS standards, and to submit corresponding attest engagement reports.
This action ensures timely amendment of existing deadlines, before
compliance obligations would otherwise go into effect. The impacts of
the RFS program on small entities were already addressed in the RFS2
final rule promulgated on March 26, 2010 (75 FR 14670), and this rule
will not impose any additional requirements on small entities beyond
those already analyzed.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule only
applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers,
distributors and marketers and merely extends the otherwise applicable
reporting deadlines.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action amends the existing
regulatory deadlines for regulated parties under the RFS program to
submit reports demonstrating their compliance with the 2013 RFS
standards, and to submit corresponding attest engagement reports. The
new deadlines only apply to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel
producers, importers, distributors and marketers. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will
be implemented at the Federal level and affects transportation fuel
refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and
renewable fuel producers and importers. Tribal governments will be
affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated fuels.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks and because it
implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes
(section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act).

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action
simply amends certain reporting deadlines for regulated parties under
the RFS program.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action does not relax the control measures on sources
regulated by the RFS regulations and therefore will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

V. Statutory Authority

    Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 211 and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C 7545 and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.

    Dated: July 31, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUELS ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7545, and 7601(a).

Subpart M--Renewable Fuel Standard

0
2. Section 80.1451 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(xiv) to read
as follows:

Sec.  80.1451  What are the reporting requirements under the RFS
program?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xiv) For the 2013 compliance year, annual compliance reports shall
be submitted within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
of the final rule establishing the 2014 renewable fuel percentage
standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced
biofuel and total renewable fuel.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 80.1464 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.1464  What are the attest engagement requirements under the
RFS program?

* * * * *
    (g) For the 2013 compliance year, reports required under this
section shall be submitted to the EPA within 90 days after publication
in the Federal Register of the final rule establishing the 2014
renewable fuel percentage standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-
based diesel, advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel.

[FR Doc. 2014-18568 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15854-15856]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0752]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established a security zone encompassing
the navigable waters of the West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape
Canaveral, Florida. This security zone will be activated 4 hours prior
to the scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin. It is only
enforceable during Maritime Security (MARSEC) Levels 2 and 3 or when
there is a specific credible threat during MARSEC Level 1. This
security zone will remain activated until the departure of all cruise
ships from the West Basin.

DATES: This rule is effective May 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0752 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search option
on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2008-0752 in the Docket
ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID
column. This material is also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Coast Guard
Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 4200 Ocean Street, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Lieutenant Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville
Prevention Department, Florida. Contact telephone is<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On October 20, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape
Canaveral, Florida in the Federal Register (73 FR 62235). We received
three letters commenting on the rule. No public meeting was requested,
and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center
complex in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, proved the
devastating effects of subversive activity on U.S. critical
infrastructure. Since that time, the Coast Guard has been taking action
to ensure the security of maritime critical infrastructure and key
resources throughout the country.
    Subversive activity towards cruise ships and their associated
passengers and crew is of paramount concern to the Coast Guard.
Therefore, in order to strengthen security and further control access
to the West Basin, the Captain of the Port Jacksonville has decided,
after consultation with the Northeast and Eastern Central Florida Area
Maritime Security Committee and in cooperation with the Canaveral Port
Authority, to implement a security zone encompassing the West Basin.
This security zone is only enforceable during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or
when there is a specified credible threat during MARSEC Level 1.
    As reflected in 33 CFR 101.105, MARSEC level means the level set to
reflect the prevailing threat environment to the marine elements of the
national transportation system, including ports, vessels, facilities,
and critical assets and infrastructure located on or adjacent to waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The higher the level number,
the greater the threat:

    MARSEC Level 1 means the level for which minimum appropriate
protective security measures shall be maintained at all times.
    MARSEC Level 2 means the level for which appropriate additional
protective security measures shall be maintained for a period of
time as a result of heightened risk of a transportation security
incident.
    MARSEC Level 3 means the level for which further specific
protective security measures shall be maintained for a limited
period of time when a transportation security incident is probable
or imminent, although it may not be possible to identify the
specific target.

As specified in 33 CFR 101.300, the Captain of the Port will
communicate any changes in the MARSEC levels through a local Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, an electronic means, if available, or as detailed
in the Area Maritime Security Plan developed under 46 U.S.C. 70103(b).

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received three comments in response to the NPRM.
One comment was received from a private citizen; one comment was
received from the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC); and one
comment was received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC).
    The private citizen's comment addressed his displeasure of a
security zone being used to protect cruise ships in the West Basin of
Port Canaveral Harbor. The commenter felt that cruise ships should
build private ports and not be permitted to dock in public waterways.
    The Coast Guard took the individual's comments into consideration;
however the need to protect cruise ships and their passengers and crew
is of paramount concern to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard feels the
best way to address this concern is to establish this security zone.
Since this zone will only be active during MARSEC 2 and 3 or when there
is a specific credible threat during MARSEC 1, the Coast Guard has
determined there will be minimal impact on all waterways users.
    The comments from the NAVSAC and FWC addressed concerns pertaining
to the rule's notification to the public when the security zone is
activated. They are of the opinion that a red flag on a 50-foot pole
located at the east end of Cruise Ship terminal 10 would not be an
appropriate means of notifying the public. The NAVSAC and FWC are
concerned that the red flag could be mistaken as the ``divers down''
flag or the ``bravo'' flag. They are also of the opinion that law
enforcement officers will be reluctant to enforce the regulation
against vessel operators who claim not to have understood the meaning
of the red flag. They believe the use of a red flag will make it more
difficult to prosecute violators of the security zone because it will
be harder to prove the element of knowledge. They feel prosecutors will
be less likely to accept these cases and judges will be more likely to
dismiss the charges. The NAVSAC and FWC recommend that a regulatory
mark be placed at the

entrance to the West Basin of Port Canaveral Harbor to notify the
public when the security zone was activated.
    The Coast Guard concurs with the NAVSAC and FWC's concerns over the
use of a red flag, and will use a red ball which is consistent with
other security zone regulations in the Port Canaveral area. A permanent
regulatory mark would be impracticable due to the need to activate the
zone quickly. To ensure boaters are given sufficient knowledge of the
security zone, the Coast Guard will continuously broadcast the
activations of the zone and law enforcement vessels will be on scene to
inform boaters that the zone has been activated. Vessels encroaching on
the security zone will be issued a Public Notice which clearly states
the location of the security zone and the times it will be enforced.
This will be the boater's first warning prior to enforcement action
being taken.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because this
security zone would only be activated 4 hours prior to the scheduled
arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin. It is only enforceable
during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or when there is a specific credible
threat during MARSEC Level 1. Once activated, this security zone would
remain activated until the departure of all cruise ships from the West
Basin or when the Captain of the Port Jacksonville (COTP) determines
there is a specific credible threat during MARSEC Level 1. This
security zone would be wholly confined within the existing West Basin
and would not impede traffic transiting from the Banana River to the
Atlantic Ocean.

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.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This security zone will be activated 4 hours prior to the
scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin. It is only
enforceable during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or when there is a specific
credible threat during MARSEC Level 1. Once activated, this security
zone will remain activated until the departure of all cruise ships from
the West Basin. This security zone will be wholly confined within the
existing West Basin and will not impede traffic transiting from the
Banana River to the Atlantic Ocean.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

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.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, 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.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.777 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.777   Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape
Canaveral, Florida.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a security zone: All
waters of the West Basin of Port Canaveral Harbor northwest of an
imaginary line between two points: 28[deg]24'57.88'' N,
080[deg]37'25.69'' W to 28[deg]24'37.48'' N, 080[deg]37'34.03'' W.
    (b) Requirement. (1) This security zone will be activated 4 hours
prior to the scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin of
Port Canaveral Harbor during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or when the COTP
determines there is a specified credible threat during MARSEC Level 1.
This security zone will not be deactivated until the departure of all
cruise ships from the West Basin. The zone is subject to enforcement
when it is activated.
    (2) Under general security zone regulations of 33 CFR 165.33, no
vessel or person may enter or navigate within the regulated area unless
specifically authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Any person or vessel authorized to enter the security
zone must operate in strict conformance with any direction given by the
COTP or a designated representative and leave the security zone
immediately if so ordered.
    (3) The public will be notified when the security zone is activated
by the display of a red ball on a 50-foot pole located at the east end
of Cruise Ship terminal 10. This red ball will be lowered when the
security zone is deactivated. To ensure boaters are given sufficient
knowledge of the security zone, the Coast Guard will continuously
broadcast the activations of the zone and law enforcement vessels will
be on scene to inform boaters that the zone has been activated. Vessels
encroaching on the security zone will be issued a Public Notice which
clearly states the location of the security zone and the times it will
be enforced. This will be the boater's first warning prior to
enforcement action being taken.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
    Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local law
enforcement officers designated by or assisting the COTP in the
enforcement of the security zone.
    (d) Captain of the Port Contact Information. If you have questions
about this regulation, please contact the Sector Command Center at
(904) 564-7513.
    (e) Enforcement periods. This section will only be subject to
enforcement when the security zone described in paragraph (a) is
activated as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    Dated: March 26, 2009.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. E9-7985 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 21603]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08254]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0075; FRL-9383-2]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Change of Meeting Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to change the meeting dates
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific
Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Tier 1 Screening Assays and Battery
Performance. The meeting was originally scheduled for May 21-24, 2013.
The new meeting dates are shown below.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 21-23, 2013, from approximately
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, Designated Federal
Official (DFO), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All other information provided in the
February 22, 2013, Federal Register notice remains unchanged (78 FR
12311).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides, and pests Endocrine
disruptors.

    Dated: April 2, 2013.
Steven M. Knott,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-08254 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13117]
[DOCID:fr14mr06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-218-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Limited Waiver

March 7, 2006.

    Take notice that on February 9, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing a petition to the Commission for a
limited waiver of its FERC Gas Tariff in order to allow Northern to
resolve a prior-period imbalance trading error by retroactively
adjusting imbalance levels for BP Canada Energy Marketing Corporation
and Swift & Company (Swift) to reflect an imbalance trade with was
agreed to but improperly communicated.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online 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 March 13, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3608 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19308]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12796-004]

City of Wadsworth, Ohio; Notice of Teleconference

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Ohio Ecological Services Field
Office and West Virginia Field Office (FWS) requested a teleconference
regarding Commission staff's March 11, 2015, request for formal
consultation on the pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta),
eastern fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria), snuffbox mussel
(Epioblasma triquetra), sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus), and
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) for the proposed R.C. Byrd Hydroelectric
Project. The FWS requested a discussion of: (1) The Commission's
hydropower licensing process; (2) the recent action listing the
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act; (3) FWS' information needs to
complete section 7 consultation for listed bats and mussels; and (4)
possible solutions to gathering the information needed by FWS.
    The teleconference will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 1:00
p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). All local, state, and federal agencies,
Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate
by phone. Please call Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER> by Monday, April
13, 2015, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to
participate.

    Dated: April 3, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08229 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P