[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8557-8558]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03391]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77128; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto, To List and
Trade Shares of the REX Gold Hedged S&P 500 ETF and the REX Gold Hedged
FTSE Emerging Markets ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600

February 12, 2016.
    On December 10, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the REX Gold Hedged S&P 500 ETF and the REX Gold Hedged FTSE
Emerging Markets ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal

Register on December 30, 2015.\3\ On January 15, 2016, the Exchange
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On January
27, 2016, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\5\ On February 11, 2016, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 3
to the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission has received no comments
on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76761 (December 23,
2015), 80 FR 81564.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, which replaced and superseded the
original filing in its entirety, the Exchange clarified the Funds'
direct and indirect principal and other investments; the
determination of the value of certain underlying assets for purposes
of the Funds' net asset value calculation; and the availability of
price information for certain underlying assets. Because Amendment
No. 1 is a technical amendment that adds clarification to the
proposal and does not materially alter the substance of the proposed
rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment
No. 1 is not subject to notice and comment (Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change is available at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-107/nysearca2015107-1.pdf).
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange made additional clarifying
changes regarding the Funds' other investments; the availability of
price information for certain underlying assets; and the
dissemination of the Portfolio Indicative Value. Because Amendment
No. 2 is a technical amendment that adds clarification to the
proposal and does not materially alter the substance of the proposed
rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment
No. 2 is not subject to notice and comment (Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change is available at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2015-107/nysearca2015107-2.pdf).
    \6\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange expanded the application of
the criteria for non-U.S. equity securities in the REX Gold Hedged
FTSE Emerging Markets ETF portfolio so that they will apply on a
continual basis. Because Amendment No. 3 does not materially alter
the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or novel
regulatory issues, Amendment No. 3 is not subject to notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \7\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is February 13, 2016. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\8\ designates
March 29, 2016, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-107),
as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03391 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 MEMORANDUM Subject: Meeting with Western Refining Regarding the Proposed Fuel Requirements for Nonroad Diesel Fuel From: Paul Machiele, Fuel Programs Center Director Office of Transportation and Air Quality To: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Air Docket A 2001 28 Date: January 15, 2004 On January 15, 2004, we met with representatives for Western Refining in Ann Arbor, Michigan to discuss to discuss the proposed fuel requirements under the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA's) proposed nonroad diesel rule, as well as various issues associated with implementation of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard. A list of issues sent to EPA in preparation for the meeting is attached.

The following industry representatives participated in the meeting:

° Ralph Schmidt  Western Refining ° Jeff Nichols  Stancil & Co.

The following EPA representatives participated in the meeting: In Person: ° Paul Machiele, Richard Rykowski, Tia Sutton, Charles Moulis, Jean Marie Revelt, Tad Wysor By Video/ Phone: ° Marilyn Bennett, Chris McKenna, Larry Haslett Attachment: 2 Hello Paul,

Ralph asked me to send you a few discussion items to guide our meeting on Thursday at 9: 00. They are:

1) Discussion of Western's regional railroad diesel market and logistics. Explore options/ mechanisms to allow some Small Refiner supply of > 15 ppm post 2014.

2) Status of proposed changes to 80.550 ( g) that address loss of small refiner status due to capacity above 155,000 bpcd as a result of merger and resulting timeline for the new entity to reach compliance.

3) Update on EPA legal review of Western's question regarding proposed partial sale of crude pipeline system and its impact on small refiner status.

4) Discussion ( time permitting) of potential changes to 80.210 ( downstream gasoline sulfur standards and PTD language) to avoid " technical violations".

We look forward to meeting with you and I have packed my gloves and scarf for the trip!

Thanks Jeff Nichols Stancil & Co.


[Federal Register: May 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 27301-27303]
[DOCID:fr10my06-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53754; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to its Equity Options Payment for Order Flow Program

May 3, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 19, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Phlx
has designated this proposal as one changing a fee imposed by the Phlx
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to amend its equity options payment for order
flow program to rebate, on a quarterly basis, any excess payment for
order flow funds that were collected but not requested for rebate by a
specialist or Directed Registered Options Trader (``ROT''). The
Exchange would calculate after the end of each calendar quarter, any
excess funds from the previous calendar quarter and would rebate, on a
pro-rata basis, to the applicable specialists, Directed ROTs and ROTs
who paid into that pool of funds. Rebated funds would be reflected as a
credit on the members' invoices.
    The Phlx states that the proposal would remain in effect as part of
the Exchange's payment for order flow pilot program that is currently
scheduled to expire on May 27, 2006.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange states that the current payment for order flow
program is in effect as a pilot program that is scheduled to expire
on May 27, 2006, the same date as the one-year pilot program in
effect in connection with Directed Orders. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 51759 (May 27, 2005), 70 FR 32860 (June 6, 2005)
(SR-Phlx-2004-91).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed additions
are italicized.
SUMMARY OF EQUITY OPTION CHARGES (p. 3/6)
* * * * *
REAL-TIME RISK MANAGEMENT FEE
    $.0025 per contract for firms/members receiving information on a
real-time basis.
EQUITY OPTION PAYMENT FOR ORDER FLOW FEES*
    (1) For trades resulting from either Directed or non-Directed
Orders that are delivered electronically and executed on the Exchange:
Assessed on ROTs, specialists and Directed ROTs on those trades when
the specialist unit or Directed ROT elects to participate in the
payment for order flow program.* * *
    (2) No payment for order flow fees will be assessed on trades that
are not delivered electronically.
    QQQQ (NASDAQ-100 Index Tracking Stock SM)--$0.75 per
contract.
    Remaining Equity Options, except FXI Options--$0.60 per contract.
    See Appendix A for additional fees.
    *Assessed on transactions resulting from customer orders. This
proposal will be in effect for trades settling on or after October 1,
2005 and will remain in effect as a pilot program that is scheduled to
expire on May 27, 2006.
    * * * Any excess payment for order flow funds billed but not
utilized by the specialist or Directed ROT will be carried forward
unless the Directed ROT or specialist elects to have those funds
rebated to the applicable ROT, Directed ROT or specialist on a pro rata
basis, reflected as a credit on the monthly invoices. At the end of
each calendar quarter, the Exchange will calculate the amount of excess
funds from the previous quarter and subsequently rebate excess funds on
a pro-rata basis to the applicable ROT, Directed ROT or specialist who
paid into that pool of funds.
* * * * *

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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
    According to the Phlx, currently, the following payment for order
flow rates are in effect at the Exchange: (1) Equity options other than
QQQQ \6\ and FXI Options are assessed $0.60 per contract; (2) options
on QQQQ are assessed $0.75 per contract; and (3) no payment for order
flow fees are assessed on FXI Options.\7\ Trades resulting from either
Directed or non-Directed Orders that are delivered electronically over
AUTOM and that are executed on the Exchange, are assessed a payment for
order flow fee, while non-electronically-delivered

orders (i.e., represented by a floor broker) are not assessed a payment
for order flow fee.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Nasdaq-100[supreg], Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg],
Nasdaq[supreg], The Nasdaq Stock Market[supreg], Nasdaq-100
Shares\SM\, Nasdaq-100 Trust\SM\, Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking
Stock\SM\, and QQQ\SM\ are trademarks or service marks of The Nasdaq
Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') and have been licensed for use for
certain purposes by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange pursuant to a
License Agreement with Nasdaq. The Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg]
(``Index'') is determined, composed, and calculated by Nasdaq
without regard to the Licensee, the Nasdaq-100 Trust\SM\, or the
beneficial owners of Nasdaq-100 Shares\SM\. The Exchange states that
Nasdaq has complete control and sole discretion in determining,
comprising, or calculating the Index or in modifying in any way its
method for determining, comprising, or calculating the Index in the
future.
    \7\ Specialists and Directed ROTs who participate in the
Exchange's payment for order flow program are assessed a payment for
order flow fee, in addition to ROTs. See Securities Exchange Act
Releases Nos. 52568 (October 6, 2005), 70 FR 60120 (October 14,
2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-58) and 53078 (January 9, 2006), 71 FR 2289
(January 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-88).
    \8\ The Exchange states that electronically-delivered orders do
not include orders delivered through the Floor Broker Management
System pursuant to Exchange Rule 1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that currently specialist units or Directed
ROTs may request that any excess funds (funds collected but not
requested by a specialist unit or Directed ROT) be rebated, on a pro-
rata basis, to the applicable members who paid into that pool of funds.
If any excess funds are rebated, they would be reflected as a credit on
the invoices.\9\ The amount a specialist unit or Directed ROT may
request that the Exchange pay to Order Flow Providers is limited to the
amount billed and collected for that month, plus any excess funds that
were carried over from previous months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange states that if a specialist unit or Directed
ROT leaves the Exchange mid-month, any excess funds in that
specialist unit or Directed ROT pool are rebated to the applicable
Exchange members on a pro rata basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its equity options payment for order
flow program to rebate, on a quarterly basis, any excess payment for
order flow funds. After the end of each calendar quarter, any excess
funds from the previous calendar quarter would be calculated and
subsequently rebated, on a pro-rata basis, to the applicable
specialists, Directed ROTs and ROTs who paid into that pool of
funds.\10\ The Exchange believes that this should allow for sufficient
time to process any rebates. Consistent with current practice, rebated
funds would be reflected as a credit on the invoices.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, after the end of March (the last month of the
quarter covering the period from January, February and March), any
excess funds from October, November and December (the previous
quarter) would be calculated.
    \11\ Based on the proposal, the Exchange intends to rebate, in
the form of a credit, any excess funds on an invoice reflecting
activity in the month following the end of a calendar quarter. For
example, after the end of March (the last month of a quarter) any
excess funds from the October, November and December (the previous
quarter) would be calculated and then reflected as a credit on the
invoices that cover activity for the month of April (``April
invoices''). The April invoices would typically be issued in the
beginning of May.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specialists and Directed ROTs would be able to continue to request
that any excess funds be rebated, on a monthly basis, to the
specialists, Directed ROTs and ROTs who paid into that pool of funds.
In addition, specialists and Directed ROTs may continue to request that
the Exchange pay to order flow providers an amount limited to the
amount billed and collected for that month, plus any excess funds
carried over from previous months. However, pursuant to the proposal,
excess funds from the previous quarter would no longer be available to
the specialists and Directed ROTs once they have directed the Exchange
to make payments to order flow providers for activity covering order
flow received for the last month of each subsequent calendar
quarter.\12 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, after the specialists or Directed ROTs direct
the Exchange to make payments to order flow providers at the end of
March (last month of a quarter), any excess funds remaining from the
previous quarter (October, November and December) would no longer be
available to the specialists or Directed ROTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the purpose of this proposal is to reduce
the economic burden on members by rebating excess payment for order
flow funds. In addition, the Exchange believes that while specialists
and Directed ROTs may carry forward excess amounts that were not paid
to order flow providers, there should be a reasonable time frame
associated with such amounts that are carried forward.
    The proposal would remain in effect as part of the Exchange's
payment for the order flow pilot program that is currently scheduled to
expire on May 27, 2006.
    No other changes to the Exchange's payment for order flow program
are being proposed at this time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \15\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \16\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may
summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All

comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-25 and should be
submitted on or before May 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7094 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16779-16780]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06306]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2001-8994; Amdt. No. 21-96]
RIN 2120-AK19

Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; disposition of comments.

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

SUMMARY: On December 4, 2012, the FAA published a final rule; request
for comments (77 FR 71691) to make the existing regulation consistent
with the FAA's intent and with the certification practice both before
and after the adoption of the existing rule. The 2012 final rule
clarifies what an applicant must show regarding a ``changed product''
to comply with applicable standards and became effective on February 4,
2013. We sought public comment on that final rule even though it is
only clarifying in nature. This action responds to the public comments
the FAA received.

ADDRESSES: You may review the public docket for this rulemaking (Docket
No. FAA-2001-8994) at the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the public docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Victor Powell, Certification Procedures Office
(AIR-110), Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone
(202) 385-6326; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Randall Petersen,
Certification Procedures Office (AIR-110), Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas
Anderson, Northwest Mountain Region--Deputy Regional Counsel (ANM-7),
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration Northwest
Mountain Regional Office, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 7, 2000, the FAA published a final rule entitled, ``Type
Certification Procedures for Changed Products'' (65 FR 36244). In that
final rule, the FAA revised the procedural requirements for the
certification of changes to type-certificated products. The revision
required the applicant to apply the latest airworthiness standards in
effect, to the extent practical, for the certification of significant
design changes of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers. Before
this final rule, many changes to aeronautical products were not
required to show compliance with the latest airworthiness standards.
This final rule was needed because incremental design approval changes
accumulated into significant differences from the original product.
Also, the final rule was intended to expand under what conditions the
latest airworthiness amendments needed to be applied to changes to
aeronautical products.
    To clarify what the 2000 final rule intended, the FAA published a
final rule; request for comments also entitled, ``Type Certification
Procedures for Changed Products'' (December 4, 2012, 77 FR 71691). The
2000 final rule requires an applicant to show that the ``changed
product'' complies with applicable standards. The purpose of Sec.
21.101 is to require an applicant to evaluate the proposed design
change and its effect on the product rather than the re-evaluation
(certification) of the entire changed product. Therefore, Sec.  21.101
was amended in the 2012 final rule to replace ``changed product'' with
``change and areas affected by the change'' to accurately limit the
scope of compliance responsibility for the applicant. That change was
also made in Sec.  21.97 for the same reason. The intended effect of
the 2012 final rule is to make the applicable requirements

consistent with the FAA's intent and with the certification practice
both before and after the adoption of the 2000 final rule.

Discussion of Comments

    Two comments were received in the docket during the comment period
for this final rule. The Boeing Company expressed concern with a
possible increase in administrative burden of establishing the
certification basis for changes it believes are significant at the
product level. Transport Canada (TCCA) commented that it believes the
final rule changes the significance of the assessment of the design
change level relative to the entire product.
    Boeing provided recommendations for changes to the preamble to the
final rule regarding Sec.  21.101 and to the final rule in general that
it believes will reestablish and clarify the original intent of the
regulation and concerns regarding the associated administrative burden
to applicants. The FAA has considered Boeing's concerns and has
determined that Boeing's recommendations need to be further evaluated
before adoption. The FAA believes the original intent of the 2012 final
rule as published is acceptable for clarifying an applicant's
responsibility for showing compliance for the change and the areas
affected by the change.
    TCCA suggested that the final rule now has the unintended
consequence of allowing a design change to be evaluated at an area,
system, component, equipment, or appliance level only, rather than at
the product level. TCCA further suggested that the final rule may lead
to an interpretation that multiple design changes could now be
evaluated individually for their significance, instead of their total
effect on the product. TCCA believes the final rule will put into
question the interpretation of what a significant change is and
recommends that the FAA reconsider the rendering of the final rule.
TCCA noted that implementation of the final rule may disrupt the
harmonized implementation of pertinent regulations and guidance
material.
    The FAA agrees that the evaluation of a proposed design change
needs to be at the product level and considered the effect of the final
rule as it applied to product level and the evaluation of changes.
However, it appears TCCA may have misunderstood the purpose and effect
of the amendment and, as a result, conflated two separate issues. The
first issue is the scope of the requirement of Sec.  21.101 to show
compliance. Prior to the amendment, Sec.  21.101(a) required that the
``changed product'' must be shown to meet applicable requirements in
effect on the date of application. ``Product'' is defined in Sec.  21.1
to mean ``aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.'' Taken literally,
the scope of the requirement to show compliance was the entire product,
including the applicant's proposed change. In practice, applicants do
not show that the entire product complies with applicable requirements;
their compliance showings, and the FAA's findings, relate only to the
proposed change and the areas affected by the change. The purpose of
this amendment is simply to conform the wording of the rule to this
long-standing practice.
    The second issue is what requirements are applicable. Prior to this
amendment, Sec.  21.101(b) and (c) allowed the compliance showing to be
made to earlier versions of the latest requirements if certain
conditions are met. However, taken literally, these exceptions still
required that the applicant show that the entire product complies at
least with earlier versions of those requirements. Limiting the scope
of this requirement eliminates the literal requirement to show
compliance for areas not affected by the change.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Even within ``areas affected by the change,'' there may be
an ``area, system, component, equipment, or appliance'' that is not
affected. Section 21.101(b)(2) allows applicants to show that these
meet the requirements of earlier amendments. For example, in the
preamble to the final rule, we cited the following example of
``areas affected by the change'': ``changing an airframe's
structure, such as adding a cargo door in one location, may affect
the frame or floor loading in another area.'' But even within these
broad areas, an applicant may be able to show that certain portions
of the area are not affected (e.g., wiring in the area may not be
affected). As another example, if a passenger seat fitting is
changed, the structure of the seat is affected, and thus Sec. Sec.
25.561 and 25.562 would need to be addressed (and probably some
other structural requirements). However, the seat fabric is not
affected, so Sec.  25.853 would not need to be addressed. This would
allow the applicant to show that these sub-areas meet earlier
versions of the applicable amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, nothing in this amendment changes the exceptions in Sec.
21.101(b) and (c) or the policies that have been developed for applying
them. For example, the harmonized policy for determining whether a
change is ``significant'' is that this evaluation is done at the
``product level.'' Under this amendment, this policy is unchanged.
Similarly, precisely identifying the scope of an applicant's obligation
to show compliance does not affect the existing requirement of Sec.
21.101(b)(1) that significance be evaluated in context with all
previous relevant design changes. We continue to agree with TCCA's view
that ``the contribution to safety and practicality principles of 14 CFR
21.101 are intended to target a measurable benefit at a product
level.''
    The FAA finds that the original intent of the existing changed
product final rule to apply to the evaluation of the change's
particular effect on the total product level is maintained with this
final rule. This rule is consistent with the preamble's goals and
published guidance and is implemented as published on December 4, 2012.

Conclusion

    After analyzing the comments submitted in response to this final
rule, the FAA has determined that further revisions to it are
unnecessary at this time. This determination is based on our finding
that this final rule is necessary because it addresses the concern that
the wording of the requirement in the 2000 rule for a compliance
showing was too broad for an applicant for a major design change.
Again, this rulemaking only clarifies the original intent of the 2000
final rule and makes the applicable requirements reflect the reality of
existing practice. This rulemaking is not a departure from or addition
to what is already being done by an applicant for a compliance showing
to the FAA in this regard.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2013.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-06306 Filed 3-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 61292]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27912]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-26-000]

Notice of Application; Texas Eastern Transmission, LP

    Take notice that on December 7, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed
in Docket No. CP18-26-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(c) and
7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations requesting authority to: (i) Construct, own, operate, and
maintain two new 8,600 horsepower (hp) Solar Taurus 70 natural-gas
fired compressor units to replace two existing natural-gas fired
compressor units, and related appurtenant facilities on existing Texas
Eastern's Lambertville Compressor Station in Hunterdon County, New
Jersey (Lambertville East Expansion Project); (ii) charge initial
incremental recourse rates and an incremental fuel percentage for firm
service on the project facilities; and (iii) abandon the existing
compressor units being replaced and related facilities; and (iv) any
waivers, authority, and further relief as may be necessary to implement
the proposal contained in its application. The Lambertville East
Expansion Project will replace 10,200 hp from the existing two units
being replaced and will provide additional 7,000 hp. The project is
designed to allow Texas Eastern to deliver 60,000 dekatherms per day to
two local New Jersey gas utilities. Texas Eastern estimates the cost of
the project to be $110,955,942, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding
the last three digits in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Berk
Donaldson, Director, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642; by
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; by facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email at
[email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 10, 2018.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27912 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 52042-52043]
[DOCID:fr08se08-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8708-1]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Notice of Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption; California's 2010 Model
Year Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine On-Board Diagnostic Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice regarding waiver of clean air act preemption.

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

SUMMARY: By this decision, issued under section 209(b) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting California its request for a waiver Clean Air
Act preemption for its 2010 and later model year heavy-duty vehicle and
engine on-board diagnostic (OBD) requirements.

ADDRESSES: The Agency's Decision Document, containing an explanation of
the Deputy Assistant Administrator's decision, as well as all documents
relied upon in making that decision, including those submitted to EPA
by CARB, are available at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (Air Docket). Materials relevant to this decision
are contained in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0844. The docket is located
at the Air Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. The telephone is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable
fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket material.
    Additionally, an electronic version of the public docket is
available through the Federal government's electronic public docket and
comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://
www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, select ``Environmental Protection Agency'' from the pull-down
Agency list, then scroll to ``Keyword or ID'' and enter EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0844 to view documents in the record of this California request.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Electronic copies of this Notice and the accompanying Decision
Document are available via the Internet on the Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web site and looking at the path entitled http:/
/www.epa.gov/OTAQ. Users can find these documents by accessing the OTAQ
web and looking at the path entitled Federal Register Notices. The
electronic Federal Register version of the Notice is made available on
the day of publication on the primary Web site http://epa.gov/docs/
fedrgstr/EPA-AIR. Please note that due to the differences between the
software used to develop the documents and the software into the
documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may
occur.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ariel Rios Building (6405J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-Mail Address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have decided to grant California a waiver
of Clean Air Act preemption pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act for
its 2010 and later model year heavy-duty vehicle and engine OBD
requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CARB Board approved the OBD standards by Resolution 05-
38 on July 21, 2005 and the California Office of Administrative Law
approved the regulations on February 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 209(b) of the Act provides that, if certain criteria are
met, the Administrator shall waive preemption for California to enforce
new motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures. The criteria include consideration of whether California
arbitrarily and capriciously determined that its standards are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the
applicable Federal standards; whether California needs State standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and whether
California's standards are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
    As further explained in the Decision Document supporting today's
decision, although EPA did receive comment on California's request, the
Agency finds there is an insufficient basis to deny California its
waiver request based on the criteria set forth in section 209(b) of the
Act.
    In its request letter to EPA, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) stated that the OBD requirements will not cause the California
standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and
welfare than the applicable Federal standards. EPA received no
information during this proceeding that questioned whether CARB's OBD
requirements are less protective than applicable Federal standards. I
cannot find that CARB's OBD regulations would cause the California
motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less
protective of public health and welfare than applicable Federal
standards.
    CARB has repeatedly demonstrated, with respect to traditional
pollution concerns, (i.e. not including global climate change), the
existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.\2\
EPA has not received any adverse comments to suggest that California no
longer suffers from serious and unique air pollution problems. Because
EPA has not received adverse public comment, or any other relevant
information, challenging the need for CARB's own motor vehicle
pollution control program based on lack of compelling and extraordinary
conditions for the purposes of this waiver request, I cannotdeny the
waiver based on a lack of compelling and extraordinary conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA recently denied California its request for a waiver for
its new motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards. See 73 FR 12156
(March 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB stated in its request letters that the amendments do not raise
any concerns of inadequate leadtime or impose any inconsistent
certification requirements. EPA received comment suggesting that EPA
not necessarily deny the ultimate granting of CARB's waiver request,
but rather that EPA defer making a decision in order to ``maximize the
opportunities for full alignment and harmonization between the EPA and
ARB OBD programs for HDOH engines, and to reduce the prospects that
other states will elect to opt into the ARB OBD program, which, from an
emissions inventory perspective, will not be materially different from
the EPA OBD program.'' EPA notes that its notice of proposed rulemaking
for heavy-duty vehicle and engine OBD was published on January 24, 2007
but a final rule has not been completed.\3\ Although EPA remains
sensitive to the issues raised by the commenter, such comments do not
include data or other basis by which to

demonstrate the feasibility of CARB's OBD requirements. I cannot find
that CARB's OBD regulations, as noted, would cause the California motor
vehicle emission standards to be inconsistent with section 202(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 72 FR 3200 (January 24, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A full explanation of EPA's decision, including our review of
comments received, is contained in a Decision Document which may be
obtained as explained above.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the
manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements in order to produce heavy-duty vehicles and engines for
sale in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that
this is a final action of national applicability.
    As with past waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined
by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the
Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations
by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make
determinations regarding waivers under section 209(b) of the Act to the
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
Robert J. Meyers,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E8-20732 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to consider and review

A set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products

November 3-6, 2009

EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683				OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, MI

FIFRA SAP Session Chair

Carey Pope, Ph.D.

Professor, Head & Sitlington Chair of Toxicology

Department of Physiological Sciences

Oklahoma State University College of Veterinary Medicine

Stillwater, OK

Designated Federal Official

Joseph  Bailey

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,   HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

John Bucher, Ph.D., DABT

Associate Director

Environmental Toxicology Program

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Research Triangle Park, NC

Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Kenneth Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, GA

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology

Department of Environmental Sciences

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, CA

FQPA Science Review Board Members

David Barber, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Toxicology

Department of Physiological Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

Zhiqiang Hu, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO

Igor Linkov, Ph.D.

Risk and Decision Science Focus Area Lead

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center

Concord, MA

Vladimir Murashov, Ph.D.

Special Assistant to the Director

National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

NIOSH

Washington, DC

Martin Philbert, Ph.D.

Senior Associate Dean for Research

The University of Michigan School of Public Health

Ann Arbor, MI

Jenny Roberts, Ph.D.

Research Biologist

Pathology and Physiology Research Branch

NIOSH

Morgantown, WV

Christie Sayes, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology

Texas A&M University

Health Science Center

College Station, TX

Paul Westerhoff, Ph.D., P.E.

Interim Head

Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering

Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ

Il je Yu, Ph.D.

Professor

Fusion Technology Research Institute

Hoseo University

Asan, 336-795

KOREA


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13309-13312]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-1044]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Shore (Belt) Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill
Basin; Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the
navigable waters of Mill Basin surrounding the Belt Parkway Bridge. In
response to a planned Belt Parkway Bridge construction project, this
rule would allow the Coast Guard to prohibit all vessel traffic through
the safety zone during bridge replacement operations, both planned and
unforeseen, that could pose an imminent hazard to persons and vessels
operating in the area. This rule is necessary to provide for the safety
of life in the vicinity of the construction of the Belt Parkway Bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 12, 2015.
    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before April 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact LT Hannah Eko, Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone (718)
354-4114, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, 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 at
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, 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 that 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,
type the docket number [USCG-2014-1044] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    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.

2. 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2014-1044) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.

3. 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).

4. Public meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    A Coast Guard Public Notice detailing work on the portion of the
Belt Parkway Bridge over Mill Basin was published on 31 July 2007.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 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. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
define regulatory safety zones.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and workers from hazards associated with construction on the Belt
Parkway Bridge.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule will give the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York
the authority to prohibit vessel traffic on this portion of Mill Basin
when necessary for the safety of vessels and workers during
construction work in the channel. The Coast Guard will close the
designated area to all traffic during any circumstance, planned or
unforeseen, that poses an imminent threat to waterway users or
construction operations in the area. Complete waterway closures will be
minimized to that period absolutely necessary and made with as much
advanced notice as possible. During closures there will not be enough
space for mariners to transit through the safety zone between the
construction vessels and the current bridge piers.
    The COTP would notify the public of the enforcement of this safety
zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal
Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR 165.7. Such
notifications would include the date and times of enforcement, along
with any pre-determined conditions of entry.
    A navigation safety situation created by construction of the new
Belt Parkway Bridge and removal of the current Belt Parkway Bridge
prompted the proposed rule. This bridge carries the Shore Parkway (also
referred to as the Belt Parkway) over Mill Basin. The current Belt
Parkway Bridge was built in 1940 and no longer meets current federal
and state safety standards. The New York City Department of
Transportation (NYC DOT) will hire contractors to construct a new fixed
bridge approximately 100 feet west of the current bridge and remove the
current movable, bascule bridge. This new bridge will represent an
increase of about 1,780 feet in length over the existing bridge and an
increase of about 46 feet in width. Construction is scheduled to begin
mid to late 2015. Scheduled completion of the new bridge and removal of
the old bridge is 2021.
    The Coast Guard has discussed this project with NYC DOT to
determine whether the project can be completed without channel closures
and, if possible, what impact that would have on the project timeline.
Through these discussions, it became clear that while the majority of
construction activities during the span of this project would not
require waterways closures, there are certain tasks that can only be
completed in the channel and will require closing the waterway.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule
to be minimal as this proposed safety zone will be limited to the Mill
Basin area, closures will mostly occur during weekdays when traffic is
low, and most waterway closures will be during times of reduced
recreational boating traffic.
    Advanced public notifications would also be made to local mariners
through appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to the
Local Notice to Mariners and at http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork which
would allow the public an opportunity to plan for these closures.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. For all of the reasons discussed in the REGULATORY PLANNING AND
REVIEW section, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. 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. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 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.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone and thus, is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be
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 record
keeping requirements, Security measures and 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 AREA

0
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.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-1044 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-1044  Safety Zone; Belt Parkway Bridge Construction, Mill
Basin, Brooklyn, NY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters from
surface to bottom of Mill Basin within 200 yards of the Belt Parkway
Mill Basin bridge, east of a line drawn from 40-36-24.29'' N, 73-54-
02.59'' W to 40-36-11.36'' N, 073-54-04.69'' W, and west of a line
drawn from 40-36-21.13'' N, 073-53-47.38'' W to 40-36-11.59'' N, 073-
53-48.88'' W.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated Representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
New York, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative
may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will
communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition,
members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel
operators of this regulation.
    (2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of
any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.
    (c) Enforcement Periods. (1) This safety zone is in effect
permanently 1 June 2015 but will only be enforced when deemed necessary
by the COTP.
    (2) The COTP will notify the public of the enforcement of this
safety zone by publishing a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) in the Federal
Register and via the other means listed in 33 CFR 165.7.

Such notifications will include the date and times of enforcement,
along with any pre-determined conditions of entry.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.
    (2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must
comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's
designated representative.
    (3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the
operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.

    Dated: March 3, 2015.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-05800 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P