[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60890-60893]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0613]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Kanawha River, Mile Markers 41.5 to 42.5, Nitro, WV,
Change in Dates

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a half mile radius of the Donald Legg Memorial
Bridge. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from potential hazards created by adding a
center section of the bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the

Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated
representative. This temporary final rule reflects a change in the
dates of the bridge construction than we previously announced in a
prior temporary final rule.

DATES:  This rule is effective without actual notice from September 6,
2023 through September 18, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from September 4, 2023 until September 6,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0613 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Chelsea Zimmerman, Marine Safety Unit
Huntington, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard previously published a temporary final rule for a
safety zone on August 17, 2023, titled ``Safety Zone; Kanawha River,
Mile Markers 41.5 to 42.5, Nitro, WV'' at 88 FR 55913. That safety zone
was going to be effective August 28, 2023, through August 29, 2023. The
Coast Guard received notice on August 29, 2023, that the project
manager must change the dates of the bridge construction. Therefore, we
must change the effective dates and enforcement times from that
original safety zone temporary final rule. This rule replaces the
previous rule issued on August 17, 2023, at 88 FR 55913. We will no
longer be enforcing the safety zone on the dates described in that
rule. Instead, this safety zone will be over the span of two weeks,
from September 4, 2023, to September 18, 2023, and subject to
enforcement when announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable.
A safety zone is needed to alleviate safety concerns associated with
construction operations for the purpose of adding the center section of
the Donald Legg Memorial Bridge. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM
because late notice was given for the change in enforcement dates,
which now require the establishment of a safety zone by September 4,
2023, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period
and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because we must establish the safety zone by September 4, 2023, in
order to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge construction
beginning on that date.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined
that safety needs associated with construction operations on the Donald
Legg Memorial Bridge from September 4, 2023, to September 18, 2023,
present a safety concern. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure
the safety of the public surrounding regulated area before, during, and
after the construction event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be subject to
enforcement via Broadcast Notice to Mariners from September 4, 2023,
through September 18, 2023, daily between 5:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. The
safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile markers 41.5
to 42.5 on the Kanawha River. The duration of the zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these
navigable waters while the bridge span is being added. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated
representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast
Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard
vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request
permission from the COTP on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 1-502-
779-5424. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of
the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast
Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine
Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. This rule is
limited to the Kanawha River from mile 41.5 to 42.5 on September 4,
2023, through September 18, 2023, and will be enforced only during the
times specified. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and
the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule involves
establishing a temporary safety zone on the Kanawha River at mile 41.5
to 42.5 on September 4, 2023, through September 18, 2023. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.T08-0613 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0613  Safety Zone; Kanawha River, Mile Markers 41.5 to
42.5 Nitro, WV, Change in Dates.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of the Kanawha River from mile marker 41.5 to mile marker 42.5,
extending the entire width of the river.
    (b) Definitions. Designated representative means a Coast Guard
Patrol Commander (PATCOM), including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the regulations in this
section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative. The Coast Guard may patrol the event
area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, the COTP or the COTP's
representative may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the
call sign ``PATCOM'', or phone at 1-502-779-5424. Those in the safety
zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by
the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all
vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official
patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with
the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion

from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (4) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation
of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of
life or property.
    (5) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via local notice to mariners and broadcast notice to
mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be subject to
enforcement from September 4, 2023, through September 18, 2023, between
5:30 a.m. to 8 p.m.

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
H.R. Mattern,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2023-19205 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4123-4124]
[DOCID:fr25ja06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-226-000]

Choctaw Gas Generation, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 18, 2006.
    Choctaw Gas Generation, LLC filed an application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed rate
tariff provides for the sales of energy, capacity and ancillary at
market-based rates. Choctaw also requested waiver of various Commission
regulations. In particular, Choctaw requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability by Choctaw.
    On January 10, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the request
for blanket approval under Part

34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish
a separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by Choctaw should file a motion to intervene
or protest 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,
385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is February 9, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Choctaw is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Choctaw, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of Choctaw's issuances of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-836 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I do believe that e-cigarettes have come a long way in aiding as an alternative to combustible cigarettes as well as being used as a cessation aid. I firmly believe that by switching to them I have not only made myself healthier but made a healthier living environment for my children. My father passed due to lung cancer. It was not until it was to late that he had found e-cigarettes. Even in that short time, he felt better and was breathing better. Although it was to late for him as his cancer had already spread to his brain at the time he found e-cigarettes. I really believe that if he had the opportunity earlier on in his diagnosis that he might still be here. It is my goal to see that more people have the opportunity to make a life changing decision by switching to e-cigarettes. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28126-28127]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4537-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

American Samoa; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the territory of American Samoa (FEMA-4537-DR), dated April 17,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on April 26, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert J.
Fenton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Tammy L. Littrell as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-11006 Filed 5-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4584-4588]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1627]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012-201068; FRL-9257-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Georgia; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Submission for the 2006
24-Hour PM[ihel2].[ihel5] Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through the
Georgia's Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), provided a letter
to EPA with certification that the Georgia state implementation plan
(SIP) meets the interstate transport requirements with regard to the
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, the interstate
transport requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) prohibit a
state's emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with the maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. In
this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, submission which was intended to meet the requirement
to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-1012 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1012, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-1012.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Georgia
SIP, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Farngalo's telephone number is (404)
562-9152; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the PM2.5 interstate transport requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), contact Mr. Steven Scofield, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. Mr. Scofield's
telephone number is (404)

562-9034; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through GA EPD, provided
a letter to EPA with certification that the Georgia SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ Specifically, Georgia certified that its
current SIP adequately addresses the elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that implementation plans for each
state contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions
from sources within a state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (in this
case the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state. In
today's action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, submission related to interstate transport for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA has made the
preliminary determination that this submission does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for this NAAQS.
EPA's rationale for this proposed disapproval is provided in the
Section III of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Georgia's October 21, 2009, certification letter also
explained that Georgia's current SIP sufficiently addresses other
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, however, today's proposed action only
relates to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will address the other section
110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in relation to Georgia's SIP in rulemaking separate from today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires states to submit ``infrastructure'' SIPs to address a
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such
standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\2\ As
provided by section 110(k)(2), within 12 months of a determination that
a submitted SIP is complete under 110(k)(1), the Administrator shall
act on the plan. As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, where
portions of the state submittals are severable, within that 12 month
period EPA may decide to approve only those severable portions of the
submittals that meet the requirements of the Act. When the deficient
provisions are not severable from the other submitted provisions, EPA
must propose disapproval of the submittals, consistent with section
110(k)(3) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. States
were required to provide submissions to address the applicable
110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), by September 21, 2009.
    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions to
meet the requirements of section 110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As identified in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance, the ``good neighbor'' provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that
adversely affect another state in the ways contemplated in the statute.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to
the impacts of interstate transport. Specifically, the SIP must prevent
sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:
(1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states;
(3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect
visibility in other states.
    In the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance, EPA
explained that submissions from states pertaining to the ``significant
contribution'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must contain adequate provisions to prohibit
air pollutant emissions from within the state that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state. EPA described a number of considerations for
states for providing an adequate demonstration to address interstate
transport requirements in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance. First, EPA noted that the state's submission
should explain whether or not emissions from the state contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated
that the state's conclusion must be supported by an adequate technical
analysis. Second, EPA recommended the various types of information that
could be relevant to support the state's submission, such as
information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and the potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient concentrations in the state, and air quality modeling. Third,
EPA explained that states should address the ``interfere with
maintenance'' requirement independently which requires an evaluation of
impacts on areas of other states that are meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated nonattainment.
Lastly, EPA explained that states could not rely on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR
does not address this NAAQS. Recognizing that the demonstration
required may be a challenging task for the affected states, EPA also
noted in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance the
Agency's intention to complete a rule to address interstate pollution
transport in the eastern half of the continental United States.
    EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required states to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 PM2.5 and/or ozone NAAQS in any downwind state.
CAIR was intended to provide states covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
to address

significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and interference
with maintenance in another state with respect to the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR provisions and
submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the CAIR
requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court) issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836
(D.C. Circuit, July 11, 2008). However, in response to EPA's petition
for rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176 (D.C. Circuit, December 23, 2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's
flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined to
impose a schedule on EPA for completing that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\3\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements that emissions
from sources in a state must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other states. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that Georgia significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of Georgia's submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?

    On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia, through GA EPD, provided
a letter to EPA with certification that Georgia's SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In its submission, Georgia states that the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements are addressed through several
regulations and legislation, including Georgia Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(sss)--Multi-pollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(uuu)--SO2
Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (Georgia Multi-
pollutant Rule).
    Georgia's October 21, 2009, submittal addresses the ``significant
contribution'' and ``interference with maintenance'' requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by relying on Georgia's CAIR SIP.\4\ Contrary to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance explicitly noting
that reliance on CAIR cannot be used to comply with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, Georgia's
submission indicates that it is meeting its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in part by
virtue of its approved Georgia CAIR SIP. CAIR was promulgated before
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were revised in 2006 and does not
address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\5\ Because Georgia's submission relies on CAIR to address the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS while CAIR does not address that NAAQS, this
submission is deficient. Several states claim that controls planned for
or already installed on sources within the State to meet the CAIR
provisions satisfied section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, states will not be able to permanently
rely upon the emissions reductions predicted by CAIR, because CAIR was
remanded to EPA and will not remain in force permanently. EPA is in the
process of developing a new Transport Rule to address the concerns of
the Court as outlined in its decision remanding CAIR. For this reason,
EPA cannot approve Georgia's SIP submission pertaining to the
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies on CAIR for
emission reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Georgia explains that their October 21, 2009, submittal
addresses interstate transport of pollutants that form ozone and
particle pollution. EPA notes that the April 25, 2005, finding of
failure to submit a plan to address interstate transport of
pollutants that form ozone and particle pollution only addresses the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \5\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's
quantification of states' significant contribution and interference
with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA.
CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, EPA's 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance directed that a state's submission pertaining to the
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be supported by an
adequate technical analysis. Additionally, EPA recommended the various
types of information that could be relevant to support the state's
submission. While Georgia did refer to the Georgia Multi-pollutant Rule
in its submission, it did not further evaluate or demonstrate with a
technical analysis that this measure and their intention to rely to the
Georgia CAIR SIP addresses the ``significant contribution'' and
``interference with maintenance'' requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as
directed by the guidance.
    The modeling conducted by EPA for the proposed Transport Rule
demonstrates that emissions from Georgia significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas. Specifically, EPA's analysis
shows that Georgia contributes to eleven counties containing downwind
24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment sites and three counties
containing downwind 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance sites.
    While Georgia's submittal indicates that its current SIP
sufficiently addresses the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect
to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in part by virtue of the CSA and its
approved CAIR SIP, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Georgia's current SIP does not meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As mentioned above,
Georgia did not provide sufficient analysis to demonstration to address
the ``significant contribution'' and ``interference with maintenance''
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As for CAIR, this rule was
promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were revised in
2006 and does not address interstate transport with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ Based upon our evaluation, EPA is proposing
to disapprove Georgia's certification that its SIP meets the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submitted provisions are severable from
each other. Therefore, EPA is

proposing to disapprove those provisions which relate to the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration and to take no action on the remainder
of the demonstration at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal (75 FR 45210), the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA
found that EPA's quantification of states' significant contribution
and interference with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded
the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's October 21,
2009, submission, relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA
has made the preliminary determination that the Georgia SIP does not
satisfy these requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of Georgia's
October 21, 2009, submission, relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
EPA does acknowledge the State's efforts to address this requirement in
its October 21, 2009, submission. Unfortunately, without an adequate
technical analysis EPA does not believe that states can sufficiently
address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The purpose of the Federal Transport Rule that
EPA is developing and has proposed is to respond to the remand of CAIR
by the Court and address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the affected states. EPA is not
proposing to take any action on the remaining elements of the
submission, including the section 110 infrastructure, and section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion regarding interference with measures
required in the applicable SIP for another state designed to prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality and protect visibility but
instead will act on those provisions in a separate rulemaking.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec.
7501-7515) or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a
sanctions clock. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions (the provisions
being proposed for disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to
meet requirements for Part D, and therefore, if EPA takes final action
to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However,
if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the state corrects
the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. The proposed
Federal Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA intends to
implement to satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for Georgia for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 act on state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain state
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA
continues to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the

relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely
disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not 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. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply disapproves certain state requirements for
inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA believes that this action
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: January 14, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-1627 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36157-36158]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property for Land Disposal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Ottumwa Regional Airport, Ottumwa, Iowa.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration,

Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO
64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Joni Keith, City Attorney, City of Ottumwa, 105
East Third Street, Ottumwa, IA 52501,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The request to release property may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 2.78 acres consisting of 1 parcel of
airport property at the Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM) under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On December 6, 2018, the City
Attorney of the City of Ottumwa requested a release from the FAA to
sell one parcel of land totaling 2.78 acres improved with a warehouse.
Buyer, Steven Roquet, will use the land and warehouse for storage of
equipment. On July 22, 2019, the FAA determined that the request to
release property at the Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM) submitted by the
Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the release of the property does not and will not
impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the
request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the
publication of this notice.

The Following Is a Brief Overview of the Request

    The Ottumwa Regional Airport (OTM) is proposing the release of
airport property of 1 parcel totaling 2.78 acres, more or less. The
release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation
Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired
airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the
subject property will result in the land at the Ottumwa Regional
Airport (OTM) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use
and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement
Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances in order to dispose of the
land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the
airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will be
subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project
for general aviation use.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Ottumwa City Hall.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on July 22, 2019.
Jim A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-15931 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) two years ago. I completely switched to electronic cigarettes seven months ago. During a routine check up with my doctor last month, he stated that I no longer exhibited any indications of COPD.  I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71891-71894]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98731; File No. SR-BX-2023-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Transaction Fees at Equity 7, Section 118(e)

October 12, 2023.
    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 September 29, 2023, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Equity 7, Section 118(e), as described further below.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on October 1, 2023.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it
generally pays credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees
to members that provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange has a
schedule, at Equity 7, Section 118(e), which consists of several
different credits and fees for Retail Orders \3\ and Retail Price
Improvement Orders \4\ under Rule 4780 (Retail Price Improvement
Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Retail Orders shall mean an order type with a Non-Display
Order Attribute submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member
Organization (as defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an
agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the
criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect
trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the
terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to
price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. See Rule 4702(b)(6).
    \4\ Retail Price Improving (``RPI'') Orders shall mean an Order
Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on the Exchange
Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better
than the NBBO through a special execution process described in Rule
4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be entered in price
increments of $0.001. RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as
``RPI Interest.'' See Rule 4702(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
schedule of fees at Equity 7, Section 118(e). Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend the qualifying criteria for two existing
fees for RPI Orders and update a related sunset date for one of the
aforementioned fees.
    Currently, the Exchange charges a $0.0018 per share executed fee
for RPI Orders entered by a member that

provides liquidity through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding an average
daily volume of 2,500,000 shares. The Exchange proposes to amend the
qualifying criteria for the $0.0018 fee. Under the proposed change, a
member could qualify for the $0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI
Orders if the member provides liquidity through RPI Orders equal to or
exceeding 0.02% of total Consolidated Volume during a month (rather
than an average daily volume of 2,500,000 shares, as the current Rule
provides).
    The Exchange believes that by modifying the qualifying criteria for
the $0.0018 per share executed fee to require that a member provides
liquidity through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding 0.02% of total
Consolidated Volume during a month rather than an average daily volume
of 2,500,000 shares in order to qualify, the criteria would be more
representative of the overall volume trading in the market. In a
fluctuating volume environment, the change to the qualifying criteria
would ease the burden to qualify for the fee. The Exchange hopes that
modifying the qualifying criteria for the $0.0018 fee as described
above will encourage members to increase liquidity providing activity
in RPI Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is effective in
achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's market will
improve, particularly with respect to RPI and Retail Orders to the
benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and Retail
Orders.
    Currently, the Exchange charges a $0.0020 per share executed fee
for RPI Orders entered by a member that (i) quotes RPI Orders in at
least 1,200 symbols on average per day; (ii) provides liquidity through
RPI Orders equal to or exceeding an average daily volume of 1,000,000
shares; and (iii) increases its average daily volume of liquidity
provided in RPI Orders at least 10% relative to the month of March
2023. This fee is applicable through September 30, 2023. The Exchange
proposes to amend the qualifying criteria for the $0.0020 fee. First,
the Exchange proposes to revise the criteria to require that a member
provides liquidity through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding 0.01% of
total Consolidated Volume during a month instead of the current
criteria that a member provides liquidity through RPI Orders equal to
or exceeding an average daily volume of 1,000,000 shares. Second, the
Exchange proposes to revise the criteria that a customer increases its
average daily volume of liquidity provided in RPI Orders at least 10%
relative to the month of March 2023 by modifying the reference month
from March 2023 to April 2023. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
offer the fee through October 31, 2023. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to charge a $0.0020 per share executed fee for RPI Orders
entered by a member that (i) quotes RPI Orders in at least 1,200
symbols on average per day; (ii) provides liquidity through RPI Orders
equal to or exceeding 0.01% of total Consolidated Volume during a month
(rather than an average daily volume of 1,000,000 shares); and (iii)
increases its average daily volume of liquidity provided in RPI Orders
at least 10% relative to the month of April 2023 (rather than March
2023). The proposed rule change provides that such fee is applicable
through October 31, 2023.
    The Exchange believes that by modifying the qualifying criteria for
the $0.0020 per share executed fee to require that a member provides
liquidity through RPI Orders equal to or exceeding 0.01% of total
Consolidated Volume during a month rather than an average daily volume
of 1,000,000 shares in order to qualify, the criteria would be more
representative of the overall volume trading in the market. In a
fluctuating volume environment, the change to the qualifying criteria
would ease the burden to qualify for the fee. Additionally, the
Exchange hopes that the proposed revision to the qualifying criteria to
a more recent reference month, together with the change to require RPI
Orders equal to or exceeding 0.01% of total Consolidated Volume, will
encourage members to increase liquidity providing activity in RPI
Orders on the Exchange relative to April 2023. If the proposal is
effective in achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's
market will improve, particularly with respect to RPI and Retail Orders
to the benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and
Retail Orders.
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the sunset date for
the proposed fee of $0.0020 per share executed. The fee will be
available through October 31, 2023.\5\ By revising the reference month
in the qualifying criteria and extending the sunset date, the Exchange
intends to continue to encourage members to earn lower fees by
increasing liquidity providing activity in RPI Orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange will continue to evaluate the appropriate parameters going
forward to encourage increasing liquidity providing activity in RPI
Orders on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed $0.0020 per share executed fee would be
available through October 31, 2023 but would not be available
thereafter. For example, as of November 1, 2023, the Exchange would
no longer offer the incentive as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For

example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to amend the
qualifying criteria for the $0.0018 per share executed fee for RPI
Orders by requiring that a member provides liquidity through RPI Orders
equal to or exceeding 0.02% of total Consolidated Volume during a month
rather than requiring an average daily volume of 2,500,000 shares.
Similarly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to
amend the qualifying criteria for the $0.0020 per share executed fee
for RPI Orders by requiring that a member provides liquidity through
RPI Orders equal to or exceeding 0.01% of total Consolidated Volume
rather than requiring an average daily volume of 1,000,000 shares. The
Exchange's goal is to make the criteria more representative of the
overall volume trading in the market and increase liquidity adding
activity in RPI Orders on its platform. It is reasonable and equitable
to address this need by modifying the qualification requirements as an
incentive for members to increase their liquidity activity in RPI
Orders on the Exchange. If the proposal is effective in achieving this
purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's market will improve,
particularly with respect to RPI and Retail Orders to the benefit of
all participants, especially those who submit RPI and Retail Orders.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable and equitable to amend
the reference date in the qualifying criteria for the $0.0020 per share
executed fee for RPI Orders, to provide, in part, that in order to
qualify for such fee, a member must increase its average daily volume
of liquidity provided in RPI Orders at least 10% relative to the month
of April 2023 (instead of March 2023). The Exchange's goal is to
continue to encourage an increase in liquidity adding activity in RPI
Orders on its platform. It is reasonable and equitable to address this
need by updating the requirement for a member to increase its average
daily volume of liquidity provided in RPI Orders at least 10% relative
to the month of April 2023, instead of March 2023, as an incentive for
members to increase their liquidity activity in RPI Orders on the
Exchange relative to a more current reference month. If the proposal is
effective in achieving this purpose, then the quality of the Exchange's
market will improve, particularly with respect to RPI and Retail Orders
to the benefit of all participants, especially those who submit RPI and
Retail Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to sunset the $0.0020 fee at the end of
October 2023 is also reasonable because the Exchange is updating the
reference month in the qualifying criteria as discussed above and the
Exchange believes that despite only offering this fee for a limited
time, the incentive may continue to encourage members to earn lower
fees by increasing liquidity providing activity in RPI Orders on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for its proposal to improve market quality for
all members that submit RPI and Retail Orders on the Exchange and by
extension attract more liquidity to the market, improving market wide
quality and price discovery. Although net adders of liquidity for RPI
Orders will benefit most from the proposal, this result is fair insofar
as increased liquidity adding activity in RPI Orders will help to
improve market quality and the attractiveness of the Exchange to all
existing and prospective retail participants. The Exchange's proposal
to sunset the $0.0020 fee incentive at the end of October 2023 is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee will be
available to all members during the month it is offered.
    Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposal is free to
shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous
pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
described above, the proposal modifies the qualification requirements
for the $0.0018 per share executed fee and the $0.0020 per share
executed fee for RPI Orders and revises the sunset date for the $0.0020
per share executed fee. Members may modify their businesses so that
they can meet the required threshold and pay lower charges. As noted
above, all members of the Exchange will benefit from any increase in
market activity that the proposal effectuates. The Exchange's proposal
to sunset the fee at the end of October does not impose an undue burden
on competition because any member can qualify for the fee during the
month it is offered. Moreover, members are free to trade on other
venues to the extent they believe that the fees assessed, and credits
provided, are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any
market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with
liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction
to fee and credit changes.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its
schedule of fees will not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from the other live exchanges and from off-
exchange venues, which include alternative trading systems that trade
national market system stock. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must

continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges
and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited.
    The proposed change is reflective of this competition because, as a
threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small market so its
ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In this regard,
even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume has less than 20%
market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as
having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted
above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity
and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and
among off-exchange venues which comprises more than 40% of industry
volume.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed changes to its fees
to increase member incentives to engage in the addition of liquidity on
the Exchange. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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 rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number
    SR-BX-2023-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-BX-2023-024. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-BX-2023-024 and should be
submitted on or before November 8, 2023.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22926 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 33008-33009]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53917; File No. SR-Amex-2005-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto Relating to Written Compliance and Supervisory Controls

June 1, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On November 7, 2005, the American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'' or
``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\ the
proposed rule change relating to written compliance and supervisory
controls. Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on
April 6, 2006. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 28, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53708 (April 24,
2006), 71 FR 25254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Amex Rule 320 to require members
and member organizations with employees to establish, maintain,
enforce, and keep current a system of compliance and supervisory
controls, including written compliance and supervisory policies and
procedures, that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules.\4\ In
addition to requiring that the written compliance and supervisory
policies and procedures be amended as necessary, the proposed rule
would require that a member's or member organization's supervisory
control employee provide reports, at least annually, to senior
management summarizing certain aspects of the compliance and
supervisory program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Amex Rule 320(e). An Amex member or member
organization consisting of a sole individual (i.e., a sole
proprietorship) would be required to maintain a written compliance
manual specifying the obligations to which such member or member
organization is subject along with the processes and controls in
place that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with such
obligations. See Amex Rule 320, proposed Commentary .08.
    \5\ See proposed Amex Rule 320(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposed clarifying edits to the text of
Amex Rule 320, including: (1) Explicit references to a member's or
member organization's obligation to comply with Exchange rules in
addition to all applicable securities laws and regulations, and (2)
replacing references to ``member firm'' with references to ``member
organization.''

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange,\6\ particularly section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which, among
other things, requires that the rules of a national securities exchange
be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this 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).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to require its
members and member organizations to establish, maintain, enforce, and
keep current a system of compliance and supervisory controls, including
written compliance and supervisory policies and procedures, that are
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities
laws and regulations and Exchange rules should help strengthen the
Exchange's regulatory program by increasing member awareness of the
laws and rules with which they must comply. It should also provide
members an additional incentive to be cognizant of changing regulatory
requirements. The Exchange will review the adequacy of its members' and
member organizations' compliance programs. Further, the requirement
that Amex members and member organizations adopt comprehensive written
compliance and supervisory policies and procedures, and report to
senior management on certain aspects of the compliance and supervisory
program, should result in the periodic assessment by members and member
organizations of the effectiveness of their compliance programs.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change should help Amex strengthen its
regulatory program for detecting, sanctioning, and deterring violations
of Exchange rules and securities laws and regulations and, therefore,
should promote just and equitable principles of trade.\8\ Furthermore,
the Commission believes that the Amex's proposal should enhance
investor protection by facilitating the Exchange's review of its
members' and member organizations' systems of compliance and
supervisory controls and by enhancing the compliance programs at the
member level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission notes that a national securities exchange
must have the capacity to enforce compliance by its members with
applicable securities laws, regulations and the exchange's own
rules. See e.g., section 6(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Amex-2005-116), as
amended, be and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8802 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P