[Federal Register: January 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 4)]
[Notices]
[Page 706-707]
[DOCID:fr07ja09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-26-000]

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Filing

December 30, 2008.
    Take notice that on December 23, 2008, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) filed a petition for
declaratory order, requesting the Commission to require New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) to rebill certain charges,
resulting from metering errors, dated back from inception of the NYISO
in 1999, to correct incorrect invoices to NYSEG for purchases of energy
totaling approximately $20 million.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 22, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-31432 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 23 (Friday, February 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8420]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02400]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91025; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Establishing Maximum Fee Rates
To Be Charged by Member Organizations for Forwarding Proxy and Other
Materials to Beneficial Owners

February 1, 2021.
    On December 2, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to delete the
maximum fee rates for processing and forwarding proxy and other
materials to beneficial owners of stock set forth in NYSE Rules 451 and
465 and Section 402.10 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, and establish
in their place a requirement for member organizations to comply with
any schedule of approved charges set forth in the rules of any other
national securities organization or association of which such member
organization is a member. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 21, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90677 (December 15,
2020), 85 FR 83119. Comments received on the proposed rule change
are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2020-96/srnyse202096.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is February 4, 2021. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposal so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments
received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\5\ designates March 21, 2021, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NYSE-2020-96).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02400 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="13/06/2008 11:52:49 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11409-11413]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3607; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-010-AD;
Amendment 39-18398; AD 2016-04-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all M7
Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-TC,
SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-
26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. This AD was prompted by information that
the airplane flight manual (AFM) does not provide adequate guidance in
the handling of engine failures, which may lead to reliance on the
negative torque system (NTS) for reducing drag. This condition could
lead the pilot to not fully feather the propeller with consequent loss
of control. This AD requires inserting updates into the airplane flight
manual (AFM) and/or the pilot operating handbook (POH) that will
clearly establish that the NTS is not designed to automatically feather
the propeller but only to provide drag protection. We are issuing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 8, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 8,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact M7
Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:
(210) 824-9421; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3607.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3607; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Heusser, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (817) 222-
5960; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all M7 Aerospace LLC Models
SA26-AT, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A),
SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 25,
2015 (80 FR 51495). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an accident
where an M7 Aerospace LLC Model SA227-AC airplane experienced left
engine power loss and consequent loss of control. Training manuals
provide descriptions of the negative torque system (NTS), which
provides partial anti-drag protection if a negative torque condition is
sensed. This feature might cause pilots to assume the system
automatically provides full anti-drag protection in the event of an
engine failure or power loss. The pilot must also take prompt action to
fully feather the propeller on the failed engine to reduce drag. A
pilot's sole reliance on the NTS for reducing drag in the event of
engine power loss may result in the pilot's failure to initiate the
Engine Failure Inflight checklist and feather the propellers in time.
    The NPRM proposed to require inserting updates into the airplane
flight manual (AFM) and/or the pilot operating handbook (POH) that will
clearly establish that the NTS is not designed to automatically feather
the propeller but only to provide drag protection. We are issuing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 51495, August 25,
2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 51495, August 25, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 51495, August 25, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following M7 Aerospace LLC service information:
     M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash One Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM), Revision, section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised
May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash Two, AFM, Revision,
section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015, and pages
III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-T AFM, Revision
A-29, section III, pages III-2 though III-25, revised November 14,
2014, and page III-26, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-AT AFM, Revision
B-33, section III, pages III-2 through III-24, revised November 14,
2014, and pages III-25 through III-30, FAA approved November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin IIIB SA226-T(B) AFM, Revision B-
29, section 3, pages 3-2 through page 3-20, revised November 14, 2014;
and pages 3-21 through 3-24, issued November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Metro SA226-TC AFM, Revision
A-43, section III, pages III-2 through page III-24, revised November
14, 2014; and pages III-25 through III-32, FAA Approved November 14,
2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4AC)
Metro III AFM, Revision B-11, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30,
revised November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4MC)
Metro III AFM, Revision A-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved
November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (6AC)
Metro III AFM, Revision A-16, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-20,
revised November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (7AC)
Metro III AFM, Revision B-19, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (7MC) Metro
III AFM, Revision A-13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9,
2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (8AC) Metro
III AFM, Revision A-15, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9,
2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (4AT) Merlin
IVC, Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH)/AFM, Revision A-12, section 3,
pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31
through 3-34, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (6AT) Merlin
IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved November
14, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (7AT) Merlin
IVC POH/AFM, Revision B-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9,
2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (8AT) Merlin
IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9,
2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-BC (6BC) AFM,
Revision 21, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-CC (6CC) AFM,
Revision 17, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-25 through 3-30, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;

     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (6DC) AFM,
Revision 34, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (8DC) AFM,
Revision 8, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT POH/AFM,
Revision 15, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT (312)
POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, page 3-3 and pages 3-5 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-32, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014; and
     M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Model SA227-TT Merlin IIIC
Aircraft POH/AFM, Revision 29, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24,
revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-25 through 3-32, issued December
9, 2014.
    These revisions to the AFM and POH clearly establish that the NTS
is not designed to automatically feather the propeller but only to
provide drag protection. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 360 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert revision into the appropriate  .5 work-hour x $85 per             * NA           $42.50          $15,300
 AFM describing action to take when    hour = $42.50.
 feathering propellers in the event
 of engine failure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-04-04 M7 Aerospace LLC: Amendment 39-18398; Docket No. FAA-
2015-3607; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-010-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 8, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA226-T(B),
SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC
(C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 01, Operations
Information.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by information that a pilot's sole reliance
on the negative torque system (NTS) for reducing drag in the event
of engine power loss may result in the pilot's failure to initiate
the Engine Failure Inflight checklist and feather the propellers in
time. This could lead the pilot to not fully feather the propeller
with consequent loss of control. We are issuing this AD to add
information to the airplane flight manual (AFM) and/or Pilot's
Operating Handbook (POH) that reliance on the NTS to reduce drag
during an engine failure could lead the pilot to not fully feather
the propeller with consequent loss of control.

(f) Compliance

    Unless already done, within the next 30 days after April 8, 2016
(the effective date of this AD), do the actions in paragraph (g) of
this AD, as applicable, including all subparagraphs.

(g) Actions

    Incorporate the applicable M7 Aerospace LLC AFM revisions as
listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(12) of this AD:
    (1) For Model SA26-AT Dash One airplanes: Insert section III,
pages III-1

through III-6, revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8,
FAA Approved May 14, 2015; into the Merlin Model SA-26AT Dash One
AFM, Revision.
    (2) For Model SA26-AT Dash Two airplanes: Insert section III,
pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7
through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015; into the Merlin Model SA-
26AT Dash Two AFM, Revision.
    (3) For Model SA226-T airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-2
though III-25, revised November 14, 2014, and page III-26, FAA
approved November 14, 2014, into the Swearingen Merlin SA226-T AFM,
Reissue A, dated June 28, 1976.
    (4) For Model SA226-AT airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-
2 through III-24, revised November 14, 2014, and pages III-25
through III-30, FAA approved November 14, 2014, into the Merlin
SA226-AT AFM, Reissue B, dated May 6, 1977.
    (5) For Model SA226-T(B) airplanes: Insert section 3, pages 3-2,
through page 3-20, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-21 through
3-24, issued November 14, 2014; into the Merlin IIB SA226-T(B) AFM,
Reissue B, dated November 2, 1979.
    (6) For Model SA226-TC airplanes: Insert section III, pages III-
2 through page III-24, revised November 14, 2014; and pages III-25
through III-32, FAA Approved November 14, 2014; into the Swearingen
Metro SA226-TC AFM, Reissue A, dated December 1, 1976.
    (7) For Model SA227-AT airplanes:
    (i) Model 4AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
November 14, 2014; into the Model SA227-AT (4AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM,
Reissue A, dated November 30, 1988;
    (ii) Model 6AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved
November 14, 2014 into the SA227-AT (6AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, dated
May 13, 1987.
    (iii) Model 7AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014, into the SA227-AT (7AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM,
Reissue B, dated November 30, 1988.
    (iv) Model 8AT: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014; into the SA227-AT (8AT) Merlin IVC POH/AFM, dated
May 13, 1987.
    (8) For Model SA227-TT Fairchild 300 airplanes: Insert section
3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31
through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the SA227-TT
Fairchild 300 POH/AFM, Reissue A, dated August 7, 1981.
    (9) For Model SA227-TT Fairchild 312 airplanes: Insert section
3, page 3-3 and pages 3-5 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014;
and pages 3-31 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the
Model SA227-TT Fairchild 300 (312) 12,500 LBS POH/AFM, dated October
4, 1981.
    (10) For Model SA227-TT Fairchild Merlin IIIC airplanes: Insert
section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014, and
pages 3-25 through 3-32, issued December 9, 2014; into the SA227-TT
Merlin IIIC POH/AFM, Reissue A, dated August 7, 1981.
    (11) For Model SA227-AC (C-26A) airplanes:
    (i) Model 4AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised
November 14, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro
III AFM, Reissue B, dated November 7, 1990.
    (ii) Model 4MC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved
November 14, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro
III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.
    (iii) Model 7AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro
III AFM, Reissue B, dated April 2, 1986.
    (iv) Model 7MC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro
III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.
    (v) Model 8AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December
9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC Metro III AFM,
Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.
    (vi) Model 6AC: Insert section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-20,
revised November 14, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-
AC Metro III AFM, Reissue A, dated May 22, 1989.
    (12) For Model SA227-BC (6BC) airplanes: Insert section 3, pages
3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through
3-36, FAA Approved December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft
Model SA227-BC AFM, dated September 25, 1989.
    (13) For Model SA227-DC (C-26B) airplanes:
    (i) Model (6DC): Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26,
revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-32, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014, into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-DC AFM,
dated August 23, 1991.
    (ii) Model (8DC): Insert section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-31,
revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-32 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-DC AFM.
    (14) For Model SA227-CC (6CC) airplanes: Insert section 3, pages
3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9, 2014; and pages 3-25 through
3-30, FAA Approved December 9, 2014; into the Fairchild Aircraft
Model SA227-CC AFM, dated December 11, 1992.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Michael Heusser,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office,
10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone: (817)
222-5038; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash One Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM), Revision, section III, pages III-1 through III-6,
revised May 14, 2015; and pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved
May 14, 2015;
    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin SA26-AT Dash Two, AFM, Revision,
section III, pages III-1 through III-6, revised May 14, 2015, and
pages III-7 through III-8, FAA Approved May 14, 2015;
    (iii) M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-T AFM, Revision
A-29, section III, pages III-2 though III-25, revised November 14,
2014, and page III-26, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;
    (iv) M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Merlin SA226-AT AFM, Revision
B-33, section III, pages III-2 through III-24, revised November 14,
2014, and pages III-25 through III-30, FAA November 14, 2014;
    (v) M7 Aerospace LLC Merlin IIIB SA226-T(B) AFM, Revision B-29,
section 3, pages 3-2 through page 3-20, revised November 14, 2014;
and pages 3-21 through 3-24, issued November 14, 2014;
    (vi) M7 Aerospace LLC Swearingen Metro SA226-TC AFM, Revision A-
43, section III, pages III-2 through page III-24, revised November
14, 2014; and pages III-25 through III-32, FAA Approved November 14,
2014;
    (vii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4AC)
Metro III AFM, Revision B-11, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30,
revised November 14, 2014;
    (viii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (4MC)
Metro III AFM, Revision A-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved
November 14, 2014;

    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2)(viii):  The list of effective pages
for this manual on page 0-iv incorrectly identifies the effective
date for page 3-4 as October 17, 1994. The correct date is November
14, 2014.

    (ix) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (6AC)
Metro III AFM, Revision A-16, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-20,
revised November 14, 2014;
    (x) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft Model SA227-AC (7AC)
Metro III AFM,

Revision B-19, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December
9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
    (xi) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (7MC) Metro
III AFM, Revision A-13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December
9, 2014;
    (xii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AC (8AC) Metro
III AFM, Revision A-15, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December
9, 2014;
    (xiii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (4AT) Merlin
IVC, Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH)/AFM, Revision A-12, section 3,
pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31
through 3-34, FAA Approved November 14, 2014;
    (xiv) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (6AT) Merlin
IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
November 14, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved
November 14, 2014;
    (xv) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (7AT) Merlin
IVC POH/AFM, Revision B-12, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30,
revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved
December 9, 2014;
    (xvi) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-AT (8AT) Merlin
IVC POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised
December 9, 2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December
9, 2014;
    (xvii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-BC (6BC) AFM,
Revision 21, section 3, pages 3-4 through 3-30, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-36, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
    (xviii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-CC (6CC) AFM,
Revision 17, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-25 through 3-30, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
    (xix) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (6DC) AFM,
Revision 34, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-32, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
    (xx) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Aircraft SA227-DC (8DC) AFM,
Revision 8, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-26, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-27 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
    (xxi) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT POH/AFM,
Revision 15, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-30, revised December 9,
2014; and pages 3-31 through 3-34, FAA Approved December 9, 2014;
    (xxii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild 300 Aircraft SA227-TT (312)
POH/AFM, Revision 13, section 3, page 3-3 and pages 3-5 through 3-
30, revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-31 through 3-32, FAA
Approved December 9, 2014; and
    (xxiii) M7 Aerospace LLC Fairchild Model SA227-TT Merlin IIIC
Aircraft POH/AFM, Revision 29, section 3, pages 3-3 through 3-24,
revised December 9, 2014, and pages 3-25 through 3-32, issued
December 9, 2014.

    Note 2 to paragraph (j)(2) of this AD:  While not specifically
identified on the manuals, paragraphs (j)(2)(vii) through
(j)(2)(xii) apply to the military version C-26A, and paragraphs
(j)(2)(xix) and (j)(2)(xx) apply to the military version C-26B of
these airplanes.

    (3) For M7 Aerospace LLC service information identified in this
AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio,
Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 10, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03171 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 9586]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4294-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4294-DR), dated January 25,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective January 25, 2017.

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: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 25, 2017, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Georgia resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-
line winds on January 2, 2017, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Georgia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to
75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Dougherty County for Individual Assistance.
    Baker, Calhoun, Dougherty, Early, Mitchell, Turner, and Worth
Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    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.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-02524 Filed 2-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO  80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8

Ref:  8ARD-PM

Ms. Martina Wilson
Environmental Director
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 1027
Poplar, Montana  59255
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Re:	CWT Operating, LLC, EPU Deep 10-1/2 Production Facility
	Permit #SMNSR-FP-000013-2022.002, Proposed Synthetic Minor New Source Review Permit

Dear Ms. Wilson:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 is proposing to issue a permit in accordance with the Tribal Minor New Source Review (MNSR) Permit Program at 40 CFR part 49, for CWT Operating, LLC's existing EPU Deep 10-1/2 Production Facility. The purpose of the proposed permit is to establish emissions restrictions for existing crude oil production operations to create a synthetic minor source of criteria pollutants with respect to the Clean Air Act title V operating permit program at 40 CFR part 71.

The proposed permit contains emissions limitations, associated testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for two existing 3-phase heater treater separators and an associated control device.

A public comment period for the proposed permit will begin on June 7, 2023, and end on July 7, 2023.

The proposed permit and supporting documents are available in the electronic docket at regulations.gov (Docket ID # EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0846), and we ask you that you please assist members of the public who contact you with instructions on how to access the material available for public review until the end of public comment period. Comments may be submitted via mail, via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0846). In addition, we have provided copies of the bulletin board public notice announcement and would appreciate it if you could post this announcement in prominent locations in your area. All of these documents will also be available for review in electronic format on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit-public-comment-opportunities-region-8.

If you have any questions concerning the proposed permit or technical support document, please contact Claudia Smith, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

						Sincerely,

						Adrienne Sandoval
                              Director
                                    Air and Radiation Division

cc: 	Linda Weeks, Air Quality Coordinator, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17946-17952]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06730]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69157; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2013-01]

Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of the Sixteenth Charges Amendment to the Second
Restatement of the CTA Plan and Eighth Charges Amendment to the
Restated CQ Plan

March 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 11, 2013,\3\ the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan
and Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan participants
(``Participants'') \4\ filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposal to amend the Second Restatement
of the CTA Plan and Restated CQ Plan (collectively, the ``Plans'').\5\
The proposal represents the sixteenth charges amendment to the CTA Plan
(``Sixteenth Charges Amendment to the CTA Plan'') and the eighth
charges amendment to the CQ Plan (``Eighth Charges Amendment to the CQ
Plan''), and reflects changes unanimously adopted by the Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The proposal was originally submitted on January 30, 2013.
It was resubmitted on February 5, 2013, February 28, 2013, and on
March 11, 2013.
    \4\ Each participant executed the proposed amendment. The
Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), International Securities Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX,
Inc. (``Nasdaq BX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Nasdaq PSX''), Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC (formerly NYSE Amex, Inc.), and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978)
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980),
45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan).
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is
a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17
CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the Sixteenth Charges Amendment to the CTA Plan and
Eighth Charges Amendment to the CQ Plan (collectively, the
``Amendments''), is to simplify the Plans' existing market data fee
schedules by compressing the current 14-tier Network A device rate
schedule into four tiers, by consolidating the Plans' eight fee
schedules into one, and by realigning the Plans' charges more closely
with the services the Plans provide, without materially changing the
revenues the current fee schedules generate. The Participants' goal is
to achieve greater simplicity and a reduction of administrative
burdens.

    Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,\6\ the
Participants designated the Amendments as establishing or changing a
fee or other charge collected on their behalf in connection with access
to, or use of, the facilities contemplated by the Plans. As a result,
the Amendments became effective upon filing with the Commission. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of the Amendments, the Commission may
summarily abrogate the Amendments and require that the Amendments be
refiled in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 and reviewed in
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608, if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from
interested persons on the proposed Amendments.

I. Rule 608(a)

A. Description and Purpose of the Amendments

1. In General
    The Participants filed the last significant fee structure change in
1986. Since then, however, significant change has characterized the
industry, stemming in large measure from technological advances, the
advent of trading algorithms and automated trading, new investment
patterns, new securities products, unprecedented levels of trading,
internationalization and developments in portfolio analysis and
securities research.
    Industry representatives who sit on the Plans' Advisory Committee
have noted these changes and have urged adoption of a modernized,
simpler, easier to read fee schedule. They have noted the desirability
of reducing the rate spread inherent in the 14-tier Network A device
rate structure and the need for reducing administrative burdens. The
Participants have discussed these goals with those industry
representatives. The proposed changes respond to the industry
representatives' comments and seek to establish a simplified pricing
structure that is consistent with current technology, that reduces
administrative burdens and that promotes the use of real-time market
data.
    The Amendments also move in the direction of harmonizing fees
between Network A and Network B and of harmonizing fees under the Plans
with fees under two other transaction reporting plans: the Joint Self-
Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation
and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges
Basis (the ``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'') and the Options Price Reporting
Authority Plan (``OPRA Plan''). This would reduce administrative
burdens for broker-dealers and other market data users and simplify fee
calculations.
    The Amendments also propose to consolidate, simplify and update the
market data fee schedules under both Plans to arrive at a single,
consolidated CTA/CQ Fee Schedule. This should make it easier for market
data users to understand and apply the fee schedule.
    The Participants anticipate that the fee changes would not
materially change the market data revenues generated under the Plans.
    The text of the proposed Amendments is available on the CTA's Web
site (http://www.nysedata.com/cta), at the principal office of the CTA,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
2. The Proposed Fee Schedule Changes
a. Professional Subscriber Charges
i. Network A
    A principal purpose of the proposed fee schedule changes is to
address the 14-tier fee structure that the Participants have in place
for Network A professional subscribers. That structure has been in
place for more than 25 years. Under the tiered structure, a firm
reports how many display devices its professional subscribers use and
that number then is used to determine the tier within which the firm
falls.
    For reporting purposes, a display device is any device capable of
displaying market data. Where a professional subscriber receives market
data services from multiple vendors, separate device fees apply for
each vendor's service. Where a vendor provides market data to a
professional subscriber by means of multiple applications, separate
device fees apply for each application.
    At one extreme, the current Network A fee tiered structure imposes
a monthly charge of $18.75 per device for firms employing professional
subscribers who use more than 10,000 devices. At the other extreme, it
imposes a monthly charge of $127.25 per device for a single
professional subscriber. (For Network A, the rates entitle the
professional subscriber to receive both Network A last sale information
under the CTA Plan and Network A quotation information under the CQ
Plan.)
    Market data users have told the Participants that they find the 14-
tier structure challenging to administer and the $18.75-to-$127.25
spread between the highest and lowest tiers too wide. The proposed
changes seek to address both concerns. The Participants propose a new
four-tier monthly Network A fee structure for the display units of
professional subscribers, as follows:
    1. 1-2 devices: $50.00.
    2. 3-999 devices: $30.00.
    3. 1,000-9,999 devices: $25.00.
    4. 10,000 devices or more: $20.00.
    The proposed narrowing of the gap between the highest rates and the
lowest rates would benefit both individuals who have not qualified as
nonprofessional subscribers and smaller firms. In particular,
individuals and firms having one device would see their monthly Network
A rate drop from $127.25 to $50, and firms having two devices would see
their monthly Network A rate drop from $79.50 per device to $50 per
device. Firms whose professional subscriber employees use between 3 and
29 devices would also have lower rates.
    On the other hand, larger firms would see higher rates in respect
of their internal distribution of market data to their employees. For
example, the rates for firms whose employees use between 750 devices
and 9,999 devices would rise from $19.75 or $20.75 per device to $25
per device, and the rates for firms whose employees use more than
10,000 devices would rise from $18.75 to $20.00.
    Many firms distribute market data to ``Customers'' and pay CTA/CQ
fees on behalf of those Customers. Those firms should pay less for
their external distribution to each Customer because the rates that
they would pay on behalf of each Customer would drop (assuming that the
firms do not provide service to more than 29 Customer devices). The
amount of the decrease would depend on the tier into which the Customer
falls.
    ``Customer'' refers to an individual client of the firm, an
independent contractor who may be associated with the firm but is not
an employee of the firm, a trading company that receives market data
from the firm for use by its traders, and any other corporate, broker-
dealer or other entity to which the firm provides data.
    A firm may only include its own employees in determining the tier
that

applies to it. It may not include in that determination any Customer to
which it provides market data or the employees of any Customer. The
rate applicable to each Customer is separately determined based on the
tier into which the Customer falls. The Amendments propose to add a
footnote (proposed footnote 2) to explain this. This explanation seeks
to prevent efforts to misuse the tiered rate structure. For the same
reason, the Amendments also propose to eliminate the reference to a
firm's officers and partners as authorized internal distributees of the
firm.
    Together with the other proposed amendments to the fee schedule,
the Participants anticipate that the changes to the Network A
professional subscriber tiered fee structure would not result in a
material change in overall revenues under the Plans.
ii. Network B
    Professional subscribers currently pay one amount for Network B
last sale information and a separate amount for Network B quotation
information. Firms that are members of a Participant currently pay
slightly less than non-members. A member pays $27.25 per month per
device to receive both last sale and quotation information for Network
B and a non-member pays $30.20. Network B is the only network that
still distinguishes between members and non-members.
    To simplify Network B professional subscriber rates and to remove
the differential, the Participants propose a single monthly rate of
$24.00 per device, applicable to both members and non-members.
    The $24.00 Network B rate would amount to a savings for most
nonprofessional subscribers, the majority of which currently receive
both last sale and quotation information. Network B has a small number
of data recipients who receive last sale information or quotation
information, but not both. The change would amount to a fee increase
for them. The Network B Participants note that Network A and the
Participants in the Nasdaq/UTP Plan and the OPRA Plan have not charged
separately for last sale information and quotation information for many
years.
    The Participants believe that a single fee for Network B devices
would prove administratively efficient for data users and the network
administrators. They note that the Nasdaq/UTP Plan imposes a single fee
of $20 for each device and that the OPRA Plan imposes a single fee
(currently $25) for each device.
iii. Broker-Dealer Enterprise Maximums
    Currently, the monthly broker-dealer enterprise maximums are at
$660,000 per month for Network A and $500,000 per month for Network B.
For that amount, the enterprise maximums allow a broker-dealer to
provide last sale and quotation information to an unlimited number of
its own employees and the brokerage account customers its
nonprofessional subscribers. The Plans provide that the amounts of the
broker-dealer enterprise maximums increase each calendar year by an
amount equal to the percentage increase in the annual composite share
volume for the preceding calendar year, subject to a maximum annual
increase of five percent.
    The Participants propose to modify the means for determining the
increase in the broker-dealer enterprise maximums. Under the proposal,
the Participants may increase the broker-dealer enterprise maximums for
Network A and Network B by the affirmative vote of not less than two-
thirds of the Participants, provided, however, that they may not
increase either network's enterprise maximum by more than four percent
for any calendar year. The Participants may elect not to increase the
fee for any calendar year.
    This proposed means for determining the increase in the broker-
dealer enterprise maximums would reduce the amount of any one year's
permissible increase from five percent to four percent and would better
reflect inflation than does the current means. The maximum four percent
increase is consistent with the average cost of living adjustment
(``COLA'') as published by the Social Security Administration for the
past 38 years.
    The Participants have not increased the Network A broker-dealer
enterprise maximum for more than five years. They have not increased
the Network B broker-dealer enterprise maximum since they first adopted
it in 1999. They propose to increase the amount of both networks'
enterprise maximums for 2013. As a result, the monthly Network A
broker-dealer enterprise maximum would increase to $686,400 and the
monthly Network B broker-dealer enterprise maximum would increase to
$520,000. These changes would not take effect until the implementation
date for the other charges set forth in these Amendments. The number of
firms reaching the enterprise caps is minimal and these firms may
benefit from proposed fee reductions in other areas.
b. Nonprofessional Subscriber Charges
    Currently, a firm pays $1.00 per month in respect of its first
250,000 Network A nonprofessional subscribers and $0.50 for Network A
nonprofessional subscribers in excess of 250,000. A firm pays $1.00 per
month for each of its Network B nonprofessional subscribers, regardless
of how many such subscribers a firm has.
    The Participants propose to harmonize the treatment of large and
small firms by applying the $1.00 per month rate in respect of all
Network A nonprofessional subscribers, regardless of the number of
nonprofessional subscribers. This would also harmonize the Network A
nonprofessional subscriber fee with the Network B nonprofessional
subscriber fee, as well as the $1.00 nonprofessional subscriber fee
payable under the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. (The fee applicable to
nonprofessional subscribers under the OPRA Plan is $1.25.) The
Participants note that the number of firms that have more than 250,000
Network A nonprofessional subscribers is very small.
c. Per-Query Charges
    Currently, Network A and Network B impose identical three-tiered
per-query rates as follows:

1 to 20 million quotes $.0075 each
20 to 40 million quotes $.005 each
Over 40 million quotes $.0025 each

    The Participants propose to modify their per-query rate structure
by replacing the three-tier structure with the same one rate as the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan and the OPRA Plan imposes: $.005 for each inquiry for
both Network A and Network B.
    As before, a vendor's per-query fee exposure for any
nonprofessional subscriber is limited to $1.00 per month (i.e., the
nonprofessional subscriber rate.)
    The single rate would simplify per-query calculations. It would
also harmonize the Network A and Network B per-query fees with the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan and the OPRA Plan per-query fees.
d. Access Fees
    Current and proposed access fees for direct access to last sale
prices are as follows:

Current Fees:
    Network A: $1,000.00
    Network B: $350.00
Proposed Fees:
    Network A: $1,250.00
    Network B: $750.00
    Current and proposed access fees for indirect access to last sale
prices are as follows:

Current Fees:
    Network A: $500.00
    Network B: $200.00
Proposed Fees:
    Network A: $750.00
    Network B: $400.00
    Current and proposed access fees for direct access to quotation
information are as follows:

Current Fees:
    Network A: $1,100.00
    Network B: $400.00
Proposed Fees:
    Network A: $1,750.00
    Network B: $1,250.00
    Current and proposed access fees for indirect access to quotation
information are as follows:

Current Fees:
    Network A: $700.00
    Network B: $250.00
Proposed Fees:
    Network A: $1,250.00
    Network B: $600.00
    Access fees are charged to those who obtain Network A and Network B
data feeds. Consistent with current practice, within each of a firm's
billable accounts, the Participants only charge one access fee for last
sale information and one access fee for quotation information,
regardless of the number of data feeds that the firm receives for that
account. The Participants believe that increases in these fees are fair
and reasonable because today's data feeds provide significant
incremental value in comparison to the data feeds that the Participants
provided when they first set the access fees.
    For example, the data feeds contain a vastly larger number of last
sale prices and bids and offers. The growth in Exchange Traded Products
has contributed to a significant increase in Network B activity. The
data feeds also contain far more information beyond prices and quotes,
such as the national best bid and offer (``NBBO''), short sale
restriction indications, circuit breaker tabs, retail price improvement
indications, and, coming soon, limit up/limit down information. In
addition to the vast increase in content, there has been significant
improvement in the latency of the data feeds.
    Further, data feeds have become more valuable, as recipients now
use them to perform a far larger array of non-display functions. Some
firms even base their business models on the incorporation of data
feeds into black boxes and application programming interfaces that
apply trading algorithms to the data, but that do not require
widespread data access by the firm's employees. As a result, these
firms pay little for data usage beyond access fees, yet their data
access and usage is critical to their businesses.
    The Participants estimate the revenues resulting from the revised
access fees would increase total Network A and Network B by six
percent, but this increase would be largely offset by an estimated five
percent decrease in total revenues resulting from the revised
professional subscriber device fees and an estimated two percent
decrease resulting from the revised quote usage fees. The majority of
customers taking data feeds are also benefiting from lower professional
subscriber fees and/or lower quote-usage fees.
    CTA and CQ data feeds include a full consolidated data set of last
sale and quotation information across all exchanges and FINRA's Trade
Reporting Facilities. In contrast, the data feeds found in the
proprietary data products of individual exchanges contain a far more
limited set of data. The following chart compares access fees for the
receipt of last sale information and quotation information:

Proposed CTA Network A:
    Direct Access: $3,000
    Indirect Access: $2,000
Proposed CQ Network B:
    Direct Access: $2,000
    Indirect Access: $1,000
NYSE: $5,000
Nasdaq: $2,000
Nasdaq BX: $1,000
Nasdaq PSX: $1,000
NYSE Arca: $750
EDGA: $500
EDGX: $500
e. Data Redistribution Charges
    The Participants propose to establish a new monthly charge of
$1,000 for the redistribution of Network A last sale price information
and/or Network A quotation information and a similar $1,000 monthly
charge for the redistribution of Network B last sale price information
and/or Network B quotation information. This will not necessitate any
additional reporting obligations.
    The redistribution charges would apply to any entity that makes
last sale information or quotation information available to any other
entity or to any person other than its own employees, irrespective of
the means of transmission or access. That is, all firms that
redistribute market data outside of their organization would be
required to pay the redistribution fee. The fee would not apply to a
firm whose receipt, use and distribution of market data are limited to
its own employees in a controlled environment.
    The proposed redistribution charge harmonizes CTA/CQ fees with OPRA
Plan fees, which impose a redistribution charge on every vendor that
redistributes OPRA data to any person. OPRA's redistribution fee is
$1,500 per month (or $650 for an internet-only service). Redistribution
fees are also common for exchange proprietary data products.
    Revenues from the redistribution charge along with the access fees
would help to offset anticipated decreases in revenues resulting from
the proposed changes to the professional subscriber device fees.
Vendors base their business models on procuring data from exchanges and
turning around and redistributing that data to their subscribers. The
costs that market data vendors incur for acquiring their inventory
(i.e., CTA/CQ market data) are very low, sometimes amounting only to
their payment of access fees. The proposed redistribution charges would
require them to contribute somewhat more, relative to the end-user
community.
f. Television Broadcast Charges
    The Participants do not propose to make any changes to current
television broadcast charges. In the case of Network A, the
Participants do not propose to change the maximum amount payable for
television broadcasts. However, the Plans provide for an annual
increase to that maximum amount. The Network A Participants in some
years have elected not to apply the annual increase. The Network A
Participants propose to codify the practice of voting to waive a
calendar year's maximum increase by adding footnote language to that
effect.
g. Multiple Data Feed Charges
    The Participants propose to establish a new monthly fee for firms
that take more than one primary data feed and one backup data feed.
(This will not necessitate any additional reporting obligations.) The
fee would be as follows:

$50 for Network A last sale information data feeds
$50 for Network A quotation information data feeds
$50 for Network B last sale information data feeds
$50 for Network B quotation information data feeds.

    For both last sale and bid-ask data feeds, this charge would apply
to each data feed that a data recipient receives in excess of the data
recipient's receipt of one primary data feed and one backup data feed.
    To date, the Participants have not required data recipients that
receive

multiple data feeds to pay any more than data recipients that receive
one primary and one back up data feed. The Participants believe that it
is appropriate to have them do so. The Participants note that the OPRA
Plan imposes a charge of $100 per connection for circuit connections in
addition to the primary and backup connections.
h. Late/Clearly Erroneous Reporting Charges
    The Participants propose to establish a new monthly fee for firms
that fail to comply with their reporting obligations in a timely
manner. The charge is $2500 for each network. The charge would not be
assessed until a firm fails to report its data usage and entitlements
for more than three months. A report is not considered to have been
provided if the report is clearly incomplete or inaccurate, such as a
report that fails to report all data products or a report for which the
reporting party did not make a good faith effort to assure the accuracy
of data usage and entitlements.
    The late reporting charges would be assessed for each month in
which there is a failure to provide a network's required data-usage
report, commencing with reporting failures lasting more than three
months from the date on which the report is first due. By way of
example, if a network's data-usage report is due on May 31, the charge
would commence to apply as of September 1 and would appear on the
market data invoice for September. The network administrator would
assess the charge as of September 1, and would continue to assess the
charge each month until the network administrator receives the firm's
complete and accurate data-usage report.
    The purpose of the charges is to provide incentives to those firms
that are delinquent in reporting their data-usage activity and to place
them on a level playing field with compliant firms.
i. Network B Ticker Charge
    As part of the process of simplifying the fee structure, the
Participants have determined to eliminate the Network B ticker charge.
This would harmonize Network B rates with those of Network A (which
phased out its ticker charge many years ago), and with the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan and the OPRA Plan, neither of which imposes a ticker charge.
3. Impact of the Proposed Fee Changes
    As with any reorganization of a fee schedule, some data recipients
may pay higher total market data fees and others may pay less. On
balance, if customer usage were to remain the same, the Participants
estimate that the fee changes would increase consolidated tape revenue
for Network A and Network B by no more than 2.9 percent. Customer usage
trends, however, have declined year-over-year since 2008, including
declines in access feeds, professional and nonprofessional subscribers,
and quote usage. This has led to a significant decline in revenues
generated under the Plans. (More information on these declines can be
found in the Participants' Consolidated Data Quarterly Operating
Metrics Reports. Those reports can be found at http://www.nyxdata.com/CTA.) Additionally, broker-dealers increasingly have reported their
executions to FINRA's Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs''). Because
the TRFs re-allocate a portion of their consolidated tape revenues back
to their broker-dealer customers, this significant and growing share of
trading reduces the consolidated tape revenues remaining with the
markets. For these reasons, the Participants believe that the proposed
fee changes would not result in a material increase in overall revenues
under the Plans.
4. Changes to the Form of the CTA/CQ Fee Schedule
    The Amendments propose to simplify, consolidate, and update the
market data fee schedules under both Plans to arrive at a single,
consolidated CTA/CQ Fee Schedule that sets forth the applicable charges
from time to time in effect under both Plans. The Participants propose
to set forth the CTA/CQ Fee Schedule in Exhibit E to the CTA Plan. It
would replace the eight CTA/CQ fee schedules currently in effect:
Schedules A-1 through A-4 of Exhibit E to the CTA Plan and Schedules A-
1 through A-4 of Exhibit E to the CQ Plan. As a result, Exhibit E to
the CTA Plan would contain the entire CTA/CQ Fee Schedule and Exhibit E
to the CQ Plan would be eliminated.
    The simplifications and updates that the consolidated CTA/CQ Fee
Schedule proposes include the following:
     Adopting changes that make fee-disclosure more
transparent, such as the addition of descriptions of what constitutes
internal and external distribution;
     removing the Network B communications facilities and line
splitter charges, which no longer apply;
     removing outdated footnotes that no longer apply;
     posting the amounts of the broker/dealer enterprise charge
and the maximum television broadcast charge on the CTA Web site
(although the amounts would also remain on the CTA/CQ Fee Schedule);
     granting the Participants the authority to waive the
annual increase for any calendar year for the Network A and Network B
broker-dealer enterprise charges and the Network A maximum television
broadcast charge; and
     changing references to the ``high speed line'' to read
``output feed.''

B. Additional Information Required by Rule 608(a)

1. Governing or Constituent Documents
    Not applicable.
2. Implementation of the Amendments
    The Participants anticipate implementing the proposed fee changes
in 2013, after giving notice to data recipients and end users of the
proposed fee changes.
3. Development and Implementation Phases
    See Item I(B)(2) above.
4. Analysis of Impact on Competition
    The proposed Amendments do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The proposed fee changes respond to the suggestions of
industry representatives and reflect the Participants' own views that
it is appropriate to establish a simplified pricing structure that is
consistent with current technology, that reduces administrative burdens
and that promotes the use of real-time market data.
    The Participants have not significantly revised the CTA and CQ
market data fee schedules in many years. They adopted the 14-tier
Network A professional subscriber rate structure in 1986 and that
structure has changed very little ever since. Numerous technological
advances, the advent of trading algorithms and automated trading,
different investment patterns, a plethora of new securities products,
unprecedented levels of trading, internationalization and developments
in portfolio analysis and securities research warrant the revision.
    In general, the proposed fee changes would cause Network A fees to
sync more closely with Network B fees and would cause Network A and
Network B fees to sync more closely with fees payable under the Nasdaq/
UTP Plan and the OPRA Plan. The proposed fees would compare reasonably
with the fees payable under those other Plans.
    As a result, these Amendments promote consistency in price
structures among the national market system

plans, as well as consistency with the preponderance of other market
data providers. This would make market data fees easier to administer.
It would enable data recipients to compare their charges under the
respective national market system plans more easily. It also would make
for a more straightforward and streamlined administrative process for
both the network administrator and market data users.
    In the Participants' view, the proposed fee schedule would allow
each category of data recipient and data user to contribute an
appropriate amount for their receipt and use of market data under the
Plans. The proposed fee schedule would provide for an equitable
allocation of dues, fees, and other charges among broker-dealers,
vendors, end users and others receiving and using market data made
available under the Plans.
    The Participants propose to apply the revised fee schedule
uniformly to all constituents (including members of the Participant
markets and non-members). The Participants do not believe that the
proposed fee changes introduce terms that are unreasonably
discriminatory.
5. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan
    Not applicable.
6. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance with Plan
    In accordance with Section XII(b)(iii) of the CTA Plan and Section
IX(b)(iii) of the CQ Plan, each of the Participants has approved the
rate changes.
7. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendments
    Not applicable.
a. Terms and Conditions of Access
    See Item I(A) above.
b. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges
    The Participants took a number of factors into account in deciding
to propose the Amendments.
    Most significantly, they listened to the information needs and
suggestions of industry representatives. In particular, the
Participants received input from members of their Advisory Committee.
The CTA and CQ Plans require the Advisory Committee to include, at a
minimum, a broker-dealer with a substantial retail investor customer
base, a broker-dealer with a substantial institutional investor
customer base, an alternative trading system, a data vendor, and an
investor. Advisory Committee members attend and participate in meetings
of the Participants and receive meeting materials. Members of the
Advisory Committee gave valuable input that the Participants used in
crafting the proposed fee changes.
    The Participants also took into consideration a number of other
factors in addition to the views of its constituents, including:
    (A) crafting fee changes that will not have a significant impact on
total revenues generated under the Plans;
    (B) setting fees that compare favorably with fees that participants
in the Nasdaq/UTP Plan and the OPRA Plan charge for similar services;
    (C) setting fees that allow each category of market data recipient
and user to contribute market data revenues that the Participants
believe is appropriate for that category;
    (D) crafting fee changes that appropriately differentiate between
constituents in today's environment (e.g., large firms vs. small firms;
redistributors vs. end users); and
    (E) crafting a fee schedule that is easy to read and use and
minimizes administrative burdens.
c. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation
    Not applicable.
d. Dispute Resolution
    Not applicable.

II. Rule 601(a) (solely in its application to the Amendments to the CTA
Plan)

A. Equity Securities for Which Transaction Reports Shall Be Required by
the Plan

    Not applicable.

B. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

C. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

D. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

E. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

F. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

G. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    See Item I(A) above.

H. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2013-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2013-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the Amendments that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the
Amendments between the Commission and any person, other than those that
may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the Amendments also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CTA.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All

submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2013-01 and should be
submitted on or before April 15, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06730 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57535]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20008]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0075; FRL-9950-85-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Kenosha County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area Reasonable Further Progress Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve an Early Progress Plan and motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen for
Kenosha County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin submitted an Early Progress Plan
for Kenosha County on January 16, 2015. This submittal was developed to
establish MVEBs for the Kenosha 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. This
approval of the Early Progress Plan for the Kenosha 2008 8-Hour ozone
nonattainment area is based on EPA's determination that Wisconsin has
demonstrated that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing these MVEBs, when considered with the emissions from all
sources, shows some progress toward attainment from the 2011 base year
through a 2015 target year.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0075 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Leslie, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 5, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-20008 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38001]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0181]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events, Breton Bay; St. Mary's
County, Leonardtown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning
amendments to the regattas and marine parades regulations. The
rulemaking was initiated to establish special local regulations during
the ``Annual Leonardtown Wharf Boat Races,'' a marine event to be held
on the waters of Breton Bay in St. Mary's County, Maryland on July 13,
2013, and July 14, 2013. The Coast Guard was notified on April 23,
2013, that the event had been cancelled.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn on June 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2013-0181 in the ``SEARCH'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Baltimore, MD, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material in
the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 12, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Special Local Regulations; Marine Events, Breton Bay; St.
Mary's County, Leonardtown, MD'' in the Federal Register (78 FR 21864).
The rulemaking concerned the Coast Guard's proposal to establish
temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Breton Bay,
in St. Mary's County, MD, effective from 8 a.m. on July 13, 2013 to 5
p.m. on July 14, 2013. The regulated area included all waters of Breton
Bay, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded to the east by
a line drawn along latitude--38[deg]16'45'' N, and bounded to the west
by a line drawn along longitude 076[deg]38'30'' W, located at
Leonardtown, MD. The regulations were needed to temporarily restrict
vessel traffic during the event to provide for the safety of
participants, spectators and other transiting vessels.

Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard is withdrawing this rulemaking because the event
has been cancelled.

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
1233.

    Dated: June 3, 2013.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2013-15095 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P