[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60102-60104]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21254]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0944; FRL-9174-02-R3]

Air Plan Approval; Delaware; Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Solvent Cleaning and Drying

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware.
These revisions pertain to the reduction of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) emissions from cold solvent cleaning operations. EPA is approving
these revisions to the Delaware SIP in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0944. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mallory Moser, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Moser can also be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 27, 2022 (87 FR 38044), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Delaware. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of a SIP revision that updates the solvent cleaning control
requirements based upon the 2012 Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Model
Rule. The SIP revision was submitted by Delaware on October 13, 2021,
requesting that EPA incorporate the Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control's (DNREC's) revisions to Title 7 of Delaware's
Administrative Code (7 DE Admin. Code) 1124 Section 33.0--Solvent
Cleaning and Drying into the Delaware SIP (Section 33.0). In response
to the NPRM, EPA received one comment on its June 27, 2022, proposed
rulemaking, which is addressed below.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    The SIP revision consists of an amendment to Section 33.0.
Specifically, the amendment updates the solvent cleaning control
requirements based upon the 2012 Ozone Transport Commission Model Rule.
    The OTC, of which Delaware is a member, is an organization
established by Congress under the CAA. Among other things, the OTC
develops model rules for the member states to use to reduce the
emissions of ground level ozone precursors. In 2001 the OTC released
the 2001 Model Rule for Solvent Cleaning, (2001 Model Rule). The 2001
Model Rule is that basis for the version of 7 DE Admin. Code 1124,
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, Section 33.0--Solvent
Cleaning and Drying that were previously approved in the Delaware
SIP.\1\ After a release of the Control Techniques Guideline (CTG):
Industrial Cleaning Solvents by the EPA in 2006, proposing new VOC
limits for solvent cleaning, the OTC convened a group of experts that
suggested a more stringent model rule than what is provided in the CTG
and the 2001 Model Rule. The OTC then developed the 2012 Model Rule for
Solvent Degreasing. The provisions set forth in Section 33.0, which is
based on the 2012 Model Rule, are more stringent than those previously
included in the Delaware SIP and form the basis of the regulation we
are approving to include in the Delaware SIP in this rule. For
instance, the provisions eliminate an existing exemption by adding
provisions that apply to owners or operators of a solvent cleaning
machine that uses any volume of solvent containing VOC. The provisions
also reduce the solvent VOC concentration from 100 percent to 25 grams
per liter of non-VOC solution for most applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 67 FR 70315 (November 22, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By removing an applicability exemption and decreasing the allowable
solvent VOC concentration, the 2012 model rule is expected to decrease
emissions of VOCs. This reduction of VOC emissions from solvent
cleaning operations will further reduce the formation of ground-ozone
because ground-level ozone is formed through the reaction of VOCs and
other compounds in the air in the presence of sunlight. High levels of
ground-level ozone can cause or worsen difficulty in breathing, asthma
and other serious respiratory problems. In addition to improving public
health and the environment, decreased emissions of VOCs, and therefore
subsequently ground-level ozone, will contribute to the attainment of
the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Delaware is
amending its SIP to add Section 33.0.

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for this action in
the Proposal. The comment period ended on July 27, 2022. EPA received
one comment, which is summarized and addressed below.
    Comment: The comment requests additional background on the
development and interpretation of the ``Federal'' 2012 OTC model rule
in the context of the commenter seeking advice with regard to acquiring
a piece of equipment. In addition, the commenter claims there could be
an economic impact to businesses if affected devices cannot efficiently
operate at the 25 grams per liter criteria set forth in the rule. The
commenter speculates using a solvent solution with lower VOC could lead
to longer run time of the cleaning devices, which may

result in an increase of fugitive emissions. The commenter asks if EPA
has certified that the rule does not have a Significant Economic Impact
on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE) and if so, if that
certification is based on studies that evaluated how effective or
ineffective the reduced VOC solution will be for the purposes it is
used for (i.e. parts cleaning).
    Response: Initially, the comment is incorrect that the OTC model
rule is a Federal rule. As explained by the OTC, the OTC model rules
and programs are developed by the OTC (not EPA) and are not effective
in an individual state until ``taken by the individual states through
their own rule adoption processes conforming to their state's
requirements.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See otcair.org/OTC_process.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical issues raised by the commenter raise issues that
appear to be unique to the commenter's specific interest of how the
rule will apply to its acquiring and operating a parts cleaner, are not
relevant to EPA's approval of Section 33.0 as being more stringent than
solvent cleaning rules in the current Delaware SIP. EPA therefore does
not consider these to be significant adverse comments on this action
and consequently EPA will not be responding to the technical
implementation questions in this rule. The commenter's request for
SISNOSE information is also not relevant because neither the
promulgation of Section 33.0, nor the development of the 2012 Model
Rule by the OTC was a Federal rule. Because the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., only applies to Federal rulemakings, neither
the OTC or the state of Delaware were required to prepare a SISNOSE for
either promulgation of Section 33.0 or the 2012 Model Rule.\3\ EPA does
not need to prepare a SISNOSE for this rule, because the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities since this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
already imposed by state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's approval of Section 33.0 as a revision to the SIP is a
Federal rulemaking, however, a SIP approval merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law, which does not
trigger obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter, while not asserting that EPA should disapprove
Section 33.0 as a SIP revision, does however assert that they ``have
been told that in some types of solvent solutions, too low of a VOC
will lead to poor results regardless of how long the batch is run for.
Even if extended operations of degreasers/parts cleaners can be equally
effective, it does raise the question in my mind that businesses may
end up generating more fugitive emissions by nature of the prolonged
device operations (?).'' The commenter does not offer any factual
support for, or data to back up an increase of fugitive emissions or
indicate a baseline from which the commenter believes a baseline should
be measured. Additionally, the commenter does not indicate that the
40.87 tons/year emission reduction calculated by Delaware, and included
in the docket for this rule, are incorrect or that Section 33.0 would
be less stringent than the rule in the current Delaware SIP.\4\
Comments, that are no more than broad assertions that an agency ``got
it wrong,'' do not provide a basis for EPA to change its decision. See,
e.g., International Fabricare Institute v. E.P.A., 972 F.2d 384 (D.C.
Cir. 1992). Therefore, this comment provides no basis for EPA to change
its decision that Section 33.0 is an approvable revision to the
Delaware SIP.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Department Response to Comment 3 in Delaware's
Technical Response Memorandum for more information on Delaware's
emissions reduction calculation.
    \5\ EPA nevertheless notes that if equipment cannot efficiently
operate at the VOC content criteria included in DE's SIP revision, a
higher VOC content concentration for cleaning solution may be used
with a VOC capture and control device that would control the VOC air
emissions to no more than would be experienced if the cleaning
solution were VOC compliant in absence of the capture and control
device. See 7 DE Admin Code 1124 Section <IP_ADDRESS>. Therefore, the
operator has the option to use lower VOC content cleaning solutions
or deploy appropriate control devices. There are several low-VOC
solvent studies referenced in Delaware's technical support document,
which can be found in the docket for this rule. These studies
identify low VOC solvent alternatives that performed effectively for
various industries and were cost effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving, as a revision, the State of Delaware's October
13, 2021, SIP submittal reducing VOC emissions from cold solvent
cleaning operations.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Delaware's
solvent cleaning and drying regulation, described in 7 DE Admin. Code
1124 Section 33.0. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA;
and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, which pertains to the reduction of VOC emissions
from cold solvent cleaning operations in Delaware, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 33.0'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the Delaware SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   State regulation (7 DNREC                            State        EPA approval
             1100)                Title/subject    effective date        date           Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               1124 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 33.0..................  Solvent Metal          08/11/2021  October 4, 2022,  ...........................
                                 Cleaning and                       [INSERT FEDERAL
                                 Drying.                            REGISTER
                                                                    CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2022-21254 Filed 10-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19471]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1440-000]

Yards Creek Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Yards Creek Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 21, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 1, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07254 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57160-57161]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28407; 812-13531]

Aberdeen Asset Management Inc., et al.; Notice of Application

September 25, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a)
under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit funds of
funds relying on rule 12d1-2 under the Act to invest in certain
financial instruments.

Applicants: Aberdeen Asset Management Inc. (the ``Adviser''), Aberdeen
Funds (the ``Trust'') and Aberdeen Fund Distributors, LLC (the
``Distributor'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 8, 2008. Applicants have
agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of
which is reflected in this notice.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on October 20, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o Lucia Sitar, Aberdeen
Asset Management Inc., 1735 Market Street, 37th Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven I. Amchan, Attorney Adviser, at
(202) 551-6826, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Assistant Director, at (202)
551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1520 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
The Adviser is organized as a Delaware corporation and is registered as
an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as
amended. The Adviser serves as the investment adviser to each existing
series of the Trust (together with future series of the Trust, the
``Funds''). The Distributor, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Adviser,
is organized as a Delaware limited liability company and is registered
as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (``Exchange Act''). The Distributor serves as the principal
underwriter to each Fund. The Trust, the Funds, and all other existing
or future open-end management investment companies and their series
advised by the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by or
under common control with the Adviser that are registered under the
Act, and that are in the same group of investment companies, as defined
in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act, as the Trust, collectively are
referred to as the ``Applicant Funds.'' Applicants request the
exemption to the extent necessary to permit any Applicant Fund that may
invest in other Applicant Funds in reliance on Section 12(d)(1)(G) of
the

Act, and that is eligible to invest in securities (as defined in
section 2(a)(36) of the Act) in reliance on rule 12d1-2 under the Act,
to also invest, to the extent consistent with its investment objective,
policies, strategies and limitations, in financial instruments that may
not be securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act
(``Other Investments'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Every existing entity that currently intends to rely on the
requested order is named as an applicant. Any existing or future
entity that relies on the order in the future will do so only in
accordance with the terms and condition in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each
Applicant Fund's board of trustees or directors will review the
advisory fees charged by the Applicant Fund's investment adviser to
ensure that they are based on services provided that are in addition
to, rather than duplicative of, services provided pursuant to the
advisory agreement of any investment company in which the Applicant
Fund may invest.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered
investment company (``acquiring company'') may acquire securities of
another investment company (``acquired company'') if such securities
represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting
stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if
such securities, together with the securities of other investment
companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total
assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered
open-end investment company may sell its securities to another
investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own
more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than
10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment
companies.
    2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides that section 12(d)(1)
will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an
acquiring company if: (i) The acquiring company and acquired company
are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the acquiring
company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of
the same group of investment companies, government securities, and
short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-
related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not
excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section
22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section
15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired
company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of
registered open-end management investment companies or registered unit
investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act.
    3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end
investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities
issued by another registered investment company in the same group of
investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (1)
Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same
group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (2) securities (other
than securities issued by an investment company); and (3) securities
issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on
rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2,
``securities'' means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the
Act.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and
provisions of the Act.
    5. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement would comply with
the provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the
Applicant Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other
Investments. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act
for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Applicant Funds to
invest in Other Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the
Applicant Funds to invest in Other Investments as described in the
application would not raise any of the concerns that the requirements
of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the
Act, except for paragraph (a)(2), to the extent that it restricts any
Applicant Fund from investing in Other Investments as described in the
application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23044 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55965-55966]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0897; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-22]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Spanish Fork, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Spanish Fork Airport
Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT, to accommodate new area
navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport. This action would ensure
the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations
within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0897; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-22, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace to support new RNAV procedures
at Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to

Docket No. FAA-2017-0897; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-22''. The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Spanish Fork Airport
Springville-Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT, within a 6.5-mile radius
of the airport. This proposed airspace is necessary to support the new
RNAV procedures for runways 12 and 30 for the safety and management of
IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Spanish Fork, UT [New]

Spanish Fork Airport Springville-Woodhouse Field, UT
    (Lat. 40[deg]08'42'' N., long. 111[deg]40'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Spanish Fork Airport Springville-
Woodhouse Field.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 14, 2017.
Brian J. Johnson,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-25419 Filed 11-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19967-19970]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7918]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0198]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Port of Dutch Harbor; Dutch Harbor, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones in the Port of
Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and adjacent U.S. territorial sea from 12:01 a.m.
local time on June 15, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. on July 1, 2012. The
temporary safety zones will encompass the navigable waters within a 25-
yard radius of moored or anchored offshore exploration or support
vessels, and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of underway
offshore exploration or support vessels. The purpose of the safety
zones is to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high volume
of vessel traffic in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and the adjacent
territorial sea due to additional vessel traffic associated with
exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during
the summer of 2012.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 3, 2012.
    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before April 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0198 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LTJG Olivia Jones, Sector Anchorage Enforcement
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0198), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0198'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received

during the comment period and may change the rule based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0198'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
    You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140
on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not plan to conduct a public meeting, but you
may submit a request for one by using one of the four methods specified
under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would
be beneficial. If we determine one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Based on the expectation of increased maritime traffic primarily
due to the anticipated arrival of approximately fourteen (14) vessels
affiliated with planned offshore drilling operations in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas, temporary safety zones are proposed to ensure the safe
transit of vessels within the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch
Harbor and adjacent waters extending seaward to the limits of the
territorial sea.
    The Coast Guard is proposing temporary safety zones due to safety
concerns for personnel aboard the support vessels, mariners operating
other vessels in the vicinity of Dutch Harbor, and to protect the
environment. Private entities have expressed continued interest in
interrupting or preventing offshore oil exploration activities in the
arctic. Tactics recently employed to interrupt or prevent offshore oil
exploration in the arctic include unlawfully boarding and trespassing
upon vessels affiliated with drilling operations and interfering with
the safe operation and navigation of these vessels. The Coast Guard has
been notified that these tactics are likely to continue and has
determined that such tactics will increase safety risks to vessels
transiting the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.
In an effort to mitigate the safety risks and any resulting
environmental damage, the Coast Guard is proposing temporary safety
zones within the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.
    In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant
safety factors and considered several criteria, including, but not
limited to: (1) The amount of commercial activity in and around the
Port of Dutch Harbor; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the
vessels; (3) sensitivity of the environment in the region and potential
adverse affects caused by a grounding, allision, or collision; (4) the
types and volume of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the Port of
Dutch Harbor; and (5) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations
without endangering the safe operations of the support vessels. Vessels
transiting in the vicinity of the proposed safety zones could consist
of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, tugs and tows,
and recreational vessels. Any group or individual intending to conduct
lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of offshore exploration support
vessels must do so outside of the temporary safety zones.
    Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the five
criteria identified above, in conjunction with International Maritime
Organization guidelines and existing regulations, warrant establishment
of the proposed temporary safety zones. The proposed regulation would
significantly reduce the threat of collisions, allisions, or other
incidents which could endanger the safety of all vessels operating on
the navigable waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent
territorial sea. The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones that
will prohibit entry into the zones unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska, or his designated on-scene
representative.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The increased maritime traffic through the Port of Dutch Harbor and
the adjacent territorial sea can potentially create a scenario where
the safety of vessels transiting through this area is placed at
heightened risk. The proposed temporary safety zones would surround the
designated vessels while at anchor, moored or underway on the navigable
waters of the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea in
order to mitigate the potential safety risks associated with the
increased vessel traffic. The proposed temporary safety zones will
encompass the waters within 25 yards of the support vessel if the
support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if the support
vessel is in transit.
    The purpose of the proposed temporary safety zones is to facilitate
safe navigation and protect vessels from hazards caused by increased
volume of vessel traffic, including hazards that may be intentionally
created, in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable
waters encompassed within the area from Cape Cheerful at 54-12.000 N
166-38.000 W north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea, and from
Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W north to the limits of the
U.S. territorial sea.
    Enforcing temporary safety zones for each offshore exploration or
support vessel while they are on the navigable waters in the Port of
Dutch Harbor or the adjacent territorial sea will help prevent
disruption to the continued operations of the vital and diverse
commercial fleets of Dutch Harbor.

 Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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

    Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic,

environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed this regulation under Executive Order 12866.
    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
minimal impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the
port of Dutch Harbor because of the limited area affected and the
limited duration of the rule. The proposed safety zones are also
designed to allow vessels transiting through the area to safely travel
around the proposed safety zones without incurring additional costs.

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.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule could affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit through or refuel within the
Port of Dutch Harbor or adjacent waters, or transit through the waters
in the near vicinity of the Port of Dutch Harbor from June 15, 2012 to
July 1, 2012.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: These
safety zone restrictions are only effective from June 15, 2012 to July
1, 2012, and are limited only to waters within 25 yards of the support
vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if
the support vessel is in transit.
    If you think your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies as a small entity and
how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact LTJG Olivia Jones via the
information provided in the ADDRESSES portion of this notice. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

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.).

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 proposed 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did

not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA) (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. Specifically, the proposed
rule will establish a safety zone, which is categorically excluded
under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g).
A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0171.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T17-0198 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T17-0198  Safety Zone; Port of Dutch Harbor; Dutch Harbor,
Alaska.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    All navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of a moored or
anchored offshore exploration or support vessel, or within a 100-yard
radius of any underway offshore exploration or support vessel, located
within the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters
encompassed within the area from Cape Cheerful at 54-12.000 N 166-
38.000 W north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea, and from
Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W north to the limits of the
U.S. territorial sea.
    (b) Effective date. The temporary safety zones become effective at
12:01 a.m., June 15, 2012, and terminate on 11:59 p.m., July 1, 2012,
unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the
area described in paragraph (a).
    (1) If a non-exploration or support vessel is moored or anchored
and an offshore exploration or support vessel transits near them such
that it places the moored or anchored vessel within the 100-yard safety
zone described in paragraph (a), the moored or anchored vessel must
remain stationary until the offshore exploration or support vessel
maneuvers to a distance exceeding the 100-yard safety zone.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative,
consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast
Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed
as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.
    (3) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons
desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene
representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission
prior to entering.
    (4) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated
on-scene representative.
    (5) The COTP will notify the maritime and general public by marine
information broadcast during the period of time that the safety zones
are in force by providing notice in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33. U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: March 21, 2012.
J.A. Fosdick,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2012-7918 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25777-25779]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10346]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69467; File No. SR-ISE-2013-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Obvious and Catastrophic Errors Rule

April 26, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 26, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Rule 720, Obvious and
Catastrophic Errors. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on March 14, 2013.\3\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69085 (March 8, 2013),
78 FR 16338 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 720 relating to obvious error
and catastrophic error rules by: (1) Providing that, in the case of
both obvious and catastrophic errors, the Exchange will nullify trades
for transactions involving Priority Customers \4\ and adjust trades
where none of the parties to the trade are Priority Customers; and (2)
harmonizing the procedure for making obvious and catastrophic error
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) defines ``Priority Customer'' as a
person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities,
and (ii) does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per
day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erroneous Transactions Involving Priority Customers

    Under current Rule 720(b)(2), the Exchange nullifies obvious error
transactions unless all parties to the trade are ISE market makers, in
which case the Exchange adjusts the price of the transaction. With
respect to catastrophic errors, the Exchange currently adjusts all
transactions even if they involve non-market makers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ISE Rule 720(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its obvious and catastrophic error
procedures to allow the Exchange to nullify trades that qualify as
either an obvious error or a catastrophic error if such trades involved
a Priority Customer and adjust trades where none of the parties to the
trade are Priority Customers (i.e., market makers, broker-dealers and
professional customers). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 720(b)(2)(ii) and adopt new Rule 720(c)(2)(B),\6\ which states
that where at least one party to the obvious or catastrophic error is a
Priority Customer, the trade will be nullified by

Market Control \7\ unless both parties agree to an adjustment price for
the transaction within thirty (30) minutes of being notified by Market
Control of its determination. The Exchange believes that this proposal
provides a fair way to address the issue of a trade executing through a
customer's limit order price while balancing the competing interests of
certainty that trades stand with the policy concerns about dealing with
true errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This proposed rule change also realigns certain parts of
Rule 720. The rule on Catastrophic Error Procedure rule was
previously found in Rule 720(d) and with the proposed realignment,
this rule now appears as Rule 720(c).
    \7\ Market Control consists of designated personnel in the
Exchange's market control center. See ISE Rule 720(a)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination of Erroneous Transactions

    Under Rule 720(b)(2), Market Control determines whether an obvious
error has occurred and applies the rule to adjust or nullify trades
with the ability for those parties affected to request that a panel of
members review decisions made by Market Control. With respect to
catastrophic errors, Rule 720(d)(2) currently requires that a panel of
members make the initial determination of whether a catastrophic error
occurred rather than Market Control.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the catastrophic error procedure to
provide that Market Control shall make the initial determination of
whether or not a catastrophic error has occurred. The Exchange's
proposed procedure would allow parties affected by an action taken by
Market Control the ability to request that such actions be reviewed by
a member panel, rather than requiring a member panel to make the
initial determination in all cases. The Exchange's proposed rule also
sets forth the steps that Market Control shall take if a determination
has been made that a catastrophic error has occurred.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Proposed Rule 720(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rearrange parts of Rule 720.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 720(c) (Obvious
Error Panel) and move the substance of that rule to new Rule 720(d),
which is also renamed Review Panel, and which will now apply to both
obvious and catastrophic errors. Proposed Rule 720(d) will provide the
composition of the Review Panel,\9\ the scope of the Review Panel's
review,\10\ the procedure for requesting review,\11\ and the decisions
of the Review Panel.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Proposed Rule 720(d)(1).
    \10\ See Proposed Rule 720(d)(2).
    \11\ See Proposed Rule 720(d)(3).
    \12\ See Proposed Rule 720(d)(4). The Exchange is also proposing
conforming amendments to Supplementary Material .01, .02, .03 and
.04 to Rule 720 to reflect the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change
and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\13\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in that the proposed change is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, will serve to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the filing, the Exchange notes its belief that the proposed rule
change relating to nullifying trades involving Priority Customers and
adjusting trades where none of the parties are Priority Customers will
help market participants better manage their risk associated with
potential erroneous trades. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule
change is not unfairly discriminatory, even though it offers some
market participants a choice as to whether a trade is nullified or
adjusted, while other market participants will continue to have all of
their obvious and catastrophic errors adjusted. Specifically, the
Exchange notes that the existing rules differentiate among market
participants.\16\ The Exchange notes further that options rules often
treat Priority Customers in a special way,\17\ recognizing that
Priority Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day
trading of the markets, less likely to be watching trading activity in
a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in
their trading accounts. The Exchange goes on to note that, while the
proposed rule change may introduce uncertainty regarding whether a
trade will be adjusted or nullified, it eliminates price uncertainty,
as customer orders can be adjusted to a significantly different price
than their limit order price under the rule prior to this proposed rule
change. Ultimately, the Exchange believes differentiating among market
participants by permitting Priority Customers to have a choice as to
whether to nullify a trade involving an obvious or a catastrophic error
is not unfairly discriminatory, because it is reasonable and fair to
provide Priority Customers with additional options to protect
themselves against the consequences of obvious and catastrophic errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes, for example, that the notification
period to begin the obvious error process is different for Exchange
market makers and non-market makers and whether a trade is adjusted
or busted also differs.
    \17\ For example, many options exchanges priority rules treat
Priority Customer orders differently and some options exchanges only
accept certain types of orders from Priority Customers. Most options
exchanges also charge different fees for Priority Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that in considering the proposed rule change,
the Exchange has weighed the benefits of certainty to non-broker-dealer
customers that their limit price will not be violated against the costs
of increased uncertainty to other market participants such as market
makers and broker-dealers that their trades may be nullified instead of
adjusted depending on whether the other party to the transaction is or
is not a Priority Customer. The proposed rule change takes an approach
similar to the one taken in the Exchange's existing obvious error rule,
whereby transactions in which an obvious error occurred with at least
one party that is not an Exchange market maker are nullified unless
both parties agree to adjust the price of the transaction within 30
minutes of being notified of the obvious error.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
relating to Market Control making the determination of whether a
catastrophic error has occurred will promote just and equitable
principles of trade by adding certainty and more consistency to the
current rule. The Exchange noted that, in its experience, the procedure
of requiring a member panel to make the initial determination of
whether or not a catastrophic error has occurred in all cases is
inefficient and unnecessary. The Exchange stated that its obvious and
catastrophic error rule and the procedures that carry out the rule have
consistently been based on specific and objective criteria. The
Exchange noted that this proposal furthers that principle by adopting
objective guidelines for the determination of which trades may be
nullified or adjusted, and for the determination of whether or not a
trade is deemed to be a catastrophic error. For the reasons noted
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the

proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2013-15) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10346 Filed 5-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69261-69262]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4198-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): ITCM-Lost Lakes E&P Refund Report
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111028-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4695-001.
    Applicants: Hafslund Energy Trading LLC.
    Description: Hafslund Energy Trading LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Hafslund supplement to be effective 9/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4729-001.
    Applicants: APN Starfirst, LP.
    Description: APN Starfirst, LP submits tariff filing per 35: Market
Based Rate Filing (Compliance) to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-215-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SCE 2012 Update ETC Reliability Services
Rate to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-216-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 20111027 Musser Revised PSA to be effective 10/21/
2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-217-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 20111027 CBEC Revised PSA to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-218-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 20111027 Radford Revised PSA to be effective 10/21/
2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-219-000.
    Applicants: Madison Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Madison Gas and Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: MGE, WPL Certificate of Concurrence to be
effective 9/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-220-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 20111027 Salem Revised PSA to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-221-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 20111027 VPI Revised PSA to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-222-000.
    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.
    Description: Appalachian Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 20111027 ODEC Revised PSA to be effective 10/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-223-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: EGSL-SRMPA Interim Service Agreement to be
effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-224-000.
    Applicants: Stream Energy Columbia, LLC.
    Description: Stream Energy Columbia, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 10/27/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-225-000.
    Applicants: Stream Energy New Jersey, LLC.
    Description: Stream Energy New Jersey, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 10/27/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-226-000.
    Applicants: Asset and Energy Cost Saving Cooperative.
    Description: Kipcon, Inc requests that the Commission cancel their
market based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111007-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 7, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-227-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Energy Imbalance Market Offer Cap Update--2012 to be
effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111028-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-228-000.
    Applicants: California Power Exchange Corporation.
    Description: California Power Exchange Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: California Power Exchange FERC Rate
Schedule No. 1 for Rate Period 20 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111028-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 18, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES12-4-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Application of Portland General Electric Company for
Short Term Debt Authority.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA11-3-000.
    Applicants: Chestnut Flats Wind, LLC, Sandy Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Description: Land Acquisition Report of Chestnut Flats Wind, LLC
and Sandy Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111027-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 17, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH12-3-000.
    Applicants: Brookfield Asset Management Inc.
    Description: Notice of Material Change in Facts of Brookfield Asset
Management Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111028-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 18, 2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 28, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28867 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P