[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5581-5584]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31054; Amdt. No. 3676]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and

associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for
operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed
because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of
changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the
commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or
changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to
promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the
affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2016. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of February 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is
unnecessary.
    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies
the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective
dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the
procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific
conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in
this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2015.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums
and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRAC date            State             City               Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Feb-16.................  TX           Sherman............  Sherman Muni.......       5/0016     12/07/15  VOR/DME-A, Orig-C
4-Feb-16.................  IN           Greencastle........  Putnam County Rgnl.       5/0056     12/07/15  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  NE           Hartington.........  Hartington Muni/Bud       5/0057     12/02/15  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig
                                                              Becker Fld.
4-Feb-16.................  OH           Kent...............  Kent State Univ....       5/0685     12/07/15  NDB RWY 1, Amdt 13A
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0702     12/07/15  SDF RWY 34, Amdt 6B
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0703     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-A
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0706     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0712     12/07/15  NDB RWY 5, Amdt 14A
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0717     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0718     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-C
4-Feb-16.................  WI           Marshfield.........  Marshfield Muni....       5/0721     12/07/15  NDB RWY 16, Amdt 10A
4-Feb-16.................  NC           Statesville........  Statesville Rgnl...       5/0906     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 3
4-Feb-16.................  GA           Montezuma..........  Dr C P Savage Sr...       5/0907     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A
4-Feb-16.................  GA           Montezuma..........  Dr C P Savage Sr...       5/0911     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-A
4-Feb-16.................  TN           Smyrna.............  Smyrna.............       5/1268     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-A
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/1623     12/07/15  ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 8B
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/1624     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20L, Orig-B
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/1625     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 20R, Amdt 1C
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/1627     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-C
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  FL           St Augustine.......  Northeast Florida         5/1647     12/07/15  VOR RWY 13, Orig-C
                                                              Rgnl.
4-Feb-16.................  GA           Butler.............  Butler Muni........       5/1709     12/01/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1B
4-Feb-16.................  NY           Buffalo............  Buffalo Niagara           5/1739     12/08/15  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 32, Amdt 1A
                                                              Intl.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/2153     12/07/15  VOR RWY 2L, Amdt 1B
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/2154     12/07/15  ILS OR LOC RWY 2L, Amdt 2C
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/2157     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2R, Orig-B
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  IL           Chicago/West         Dupage.............       5/2175     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2L, Orig-C
                                         Chicago.
4-Feb-16.................  TN           Dyersburg..........  Dyersburg Rgnl.....       5/2799     12/11/15  VOR-A, Amdt 18
4-Feb-16.................  KS           Newton.............  Newton-City-County.       5/2866     12/02/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  KS           Newton.............  Newton-City-County.       5/2867     12/02/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  GA           Cochran............  Cochran............       5/4119     12/11/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1
4-Feb-16.................  GA           Cochran............  Cochran............       5/4123     12/11/15  VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 6
4-Feb-16.................  MS           Batesville.........  Panola County......       5/4149     12/11/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
4-Feb-16.................  WA           Everett............  Snohomish County          5/4281     12/07/15  ILS OR LOC/DME Z RWY 16R, ILS Z RWY 16R (SA
                                                              (Paine Fld).                                   CAT II), Orig-A
4-Feb-16.................  WV           Petersburg.........  Grant County.......       5/4432     12/11/15  LDA/DME-B, Amdt 3A
4-Feb-16.................  WV           Petersburg.........  Grant County.......       5/4434     12/11/15  VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2A
4-Feb-16.................  WV           Petersburg.........  Grant County.......       5/4436     12/11/15  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 31, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  CA           Lompoc.............  Lompoc.............       5/5766     12/01/15  Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 2
4-Feb-16.................  TX           Austin.............  Austin-Bergstrom          5/5822     12/02/15  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17L, Orig
                                                              Intl.
4-Feb-16.................  TX           Austin.............  Austin-Bergstrom          5/5823     12/02/15  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Orig
                                                              Intl.
4-Feb-16.................  AK           Point Lay..........  Point Lay LRRS.....       5/5848     12/01/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
4-Feb-16.................  AK           Point Lay..........  Point Lay LRRS.....       5/5895     12/01/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
4-Feb-16.................  AK           Point Lay..........  Point Lay LRRS.....       5/5896     12/01/15  NDB RWY 5, Amdt 1
4-Feb-16.................  CA           Van Nuys...........  Van Nuys...........       5/6699     12/01/15  ILS RWY 16R, Amdt 5H
4-Feb-16.................  ID           Blackfoot..........  McCarley Fld.......       5/7026     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  ID           Blackfoot..........  McCarley Fld.......       5/7027     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  ID           Blackfoot..........  McCarley Fld.......       5/7028     12/07/15  VOR/DME-C, Orig
4-Feb-16.................  WA           Spokane............  Felts Field........       5/7030     12/07/15  VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 5A
4-Feb-16.................  WA           Spokane............  Felts Field........       5/7032     12/07/15  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 22R, Amdt 1B
4-Feb-16.................  NY           New York...........  John F Kennedy Intl       5/7063     12/07/15  ILS OR LOC RWY 4L, Amdt 11
4-Feb-16.................  KY           Louisville.........  Louisville Intl-          5/7088     12/01/15  ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, Amdt 4D
                                                              Standiford Field.
4-Feb-16.................  KY           Louisville.........  Louisville Intl-          5/7089     12/01/15  ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, ILS RWY 35L (SA CAT I),
                                                              Standiford Field.                              ILS RWY 35L (CAT II And CAT III), Amdt 3D
4-Feb-16.................  PA           Ebensburg..........  Ebensburg..........       5/7284     12/07/15  VOR-A, Amdt 7A
4-Feb-16.................  AL           Birmingham.........  Birmingham-               5/7328     12/07/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A
                                                              Shuttlesworth Intl.
4-Feb-16.................  KY           Louisville.........  Louisville Intl-          5/8104     12/01/15  ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 3E
                                                              Standiford Field.
4-Feb-16.................  CA           Santa Ynez.........  Santa Ynez.........       5/8137     12/01/15  GPS RWY 8, Orig-A

4-Feb-16.................  TX           Brenham............  Brenham Muni.......       5/8264     12/02/15  RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 2A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-01856 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5704-5706]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0003; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANE-104]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Jet Routes J-37 and J-55; Northeast
United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Jet Routes J-37 and J-55 in the
Northeast United States (U.S.) by terminating the routes at a
navigation aid prior to the U.S./Canadian Border. This change is
proposed to resolve flight plan processing issues between U.S. and
Canadian air traffic control (ATC) systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-
0003 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ANE-104 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0003 and Airspace Docket No. 09-

ANE-104) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management
Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may
also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-0003 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ANE-104.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College
Park, GA 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Jet Route J-37 by terminating
the route at the Massena, NY, very high frequency omnidirectional
range/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) aid. J-37 currently terminates
at a point where the Massena VORTAC 037[deg] (T) radial intersects the
U.S./Canadian border. Wherein J-37 terminates at the international
boundary rather than a navigation aid or fix imposes flight plan
processing issues between U.S. En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)
and Canadian ATC facilities. The proposed change would eliminate the
short segment of J-37 that extends between the Massena VORTAC and the
U.S./Canadian border. Four other existing Jet Routes that terminate at
the Massena VORTAC provide connectivity between J-37 and routes that
extend into Canadian airspace.
    The FAA is also proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify
Jet Route J-55 by terminating that route at the Presque Isle, ME, VOR/
distance measuring equipment (DME) aid. This would eliminate the
segment of J-55 that extends between the Presque Isle VOR/DME and the
Mont Joli, PQ, Canada VOR/DME.
    All radials in the J-37 and J-55 legal descriptions in this NPRM
are stated in reference to True North only.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9T
dated August 27, 2009 and effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes listed in this
document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the route structure as required to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic.

Environmental Review

    This proposal is not subject to environmental review because all
proposed actions relate to flight above Flight Level 180 in accordance
with FAA Memorandums dated January 17, 2001 and September 25, 2003
related to the altitude cut-off to be used in determining the study
areas for environmental analyses. Additionally, if environmental review
were required, this proposed action would qualify for categorical
exclusion in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures'' Paragraph 311a.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, Dated August 27,
2009 and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-37 [Amended]

    From Hobby, TX, via INT of the Hobby 090[deg] and Harvey, LA,
266[deg] radials; Harvey; Semmes, AL; Montgomery, AL; Spartanburg,
SC; Lynchburg, VA; Gordonsville, VA; Brooke, VA; INT Brooke 067[deg]
and Coyle, NJ,

226[deg] radials; to Coyle. From Kennedy, NY; Kingston, NY; Albany,
NY; Massena, NY.
* * * * *

J-55 [Amended]

    From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 331[deg] and Gators, FL, 160[deg]
radials; INT Gators 160[deg] and Craig, FL, 192[deg] radials; Craig;
INT Craig 004[deg] and Savannah, GA, 193[deg] radials; Savannah;
Charleston, SC; Florence, SC; INT Florence 003[deg] and Raleigh-
Durham, NC, 224[deg] radials; Raleigh-Durham; INT Raleigh-Durham
035[deg] and Hopewell, VA, 234[deg] radials; Hopewell; INT Hopewell
030[deg] and Nottingham, MD, 174[deg] radials. From Sea Isle, NJ;
INT Sea Isle 050[deg] and Hampton, NY, 223[deg] radials; Hampton;
Providence, RI; Boston, MA; Kennebunk, ME; Presque Isle, ME.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace & Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-2468 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6404-6405]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3308-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Oklahoma; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-3308-EM), dated January 30,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, 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 30, 2010, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Oklahoma resulting from a severe winter storm
beginning on January 28, 2010, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency 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 an emergency
exists in the State of Oklahoma.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. 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 emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gregory
W. Eaton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    All 77 counties of the State of Oklahoma for emergency
protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance 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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-2798 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74092-74093]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30830]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65826; File No. SR-EDGA-2011-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule To Amend EDGA Rule
11.9

November 23, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 17, 2011, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Item II
below, which item have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 introduce an additional routing option to
Rule 11.9 and amend existing routing options. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.directedge.com, on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov, at the
Exchange's principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the
Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's current list of routing options are codified in Rule
11.9(b)(3). In this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend the language
of two routing options contained in Rule 11.9(b)(3) to modify the
behavior of unexecuted shares and distinguish the execution path if an
order is sent as a Day Order \3\ versus an Immediate-or-Cancel
(``IOC'') \4\ order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Rule 11.5(b)(2).
    \4\ As defined in Rule 11.5(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Rule 11.9(b)(3)(h) provides that the RDOT routing
option checks the System for available shares and then is sent
sequentially to destinations on the System routing table. If shares
remain unexecuted after routing, they are sent to the NYSE. The
Exchange proposes to modify this strategy to provide that any
unexecuted shares can be re-routed by the NYSE and any remainder after
routing will be posted to the NYSE book, unless otherwise instructed by
the User. The phrase ``unless otherwise instructed by the User'' is
proposed to be added to the rule to account for the fact that if a User
sends an IOC order, it will not post to the NYSE book.
    Rule 11.9(b)(3)(i) provides that the RDOX routing option checks the
System for available shares and then is sent to the NYSE. The Exchange
proposes to amend this strategy to provide that the unexecuted shares
can be re-routed by the NYSE and any remainder after routing will be
posted to the NYSE book, unless otherwise instructed by the User. The
phrase ``unless otherwise instructed by the User'' is proposed to be
added to the rule to account for the fact that if a User sends an IOC
order, it will not post to the NYSE book.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.9(b)(3)(n), which
currently has an incorrect cross reference to the ROUT routing option
as being in paragraph (h) in its description. The Exchange proposes to
correct the citation to cross reference paragraph (c) for the ROUT
routing option.
    The Exchange believes the proposed modification of the routing
options described above will provide additional specificity to the
Exchange's rulebook regarding routing strategies and will further
enhance transparency with respect to Exchange routing offerings.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which requires the rules of an
exchange to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. The proposed changes to the two routing options
described above will provide additional specificity to the Exchange's
rulebook regarding routing strategies and will further enhance
transparency with respect to Exchange routing offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\8\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange notes that waiver of
this requirement will allow the Exchange to offer Exchange Users the
modified routing strategies, on or about December 5, 2011. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public

interest because such waiver would allow the modified routing
strategies to become available on or about December 5, 2011, and would
immediately provide additional specificity to the Exchange's rules
regarding routing strategies and further enhance transparency with
respect to Exchange routing offerings. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with
the Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2011-37 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-EDGA-2011-37. 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 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 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
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. 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-EDGA-2011-37 and should be
submitted on or before December 21, 2011.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30830 Filed 11-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 36621]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11821]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-6317]

Notice of Intention To Cancel Registration Pursuant to Section
203(H) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

May 30, 2023.
    Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') intends to issue an order, pursuant to Section 203(h)
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act''), cancelling the
registration of The Swarthmore Group, Inc., File No. 801-58069,
hereinafter referred to as the ``registrant.''
    Section 203(h) provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission
finds that any person registered under Section 203, or who has pending
an application for registration filed under that section, is no longer
in existence, is not engaged in business as an investment adviser, or
is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section
203A, the Commission shall by order, cancel the registration of such
person.
    The registrant appears to be no longer in business as an investment
adviser and has not filed its most recent Form ADV amendment with the
Commission as required by rule 204-1 under the Act.\1\ Accordingly, the
Commission believes that reasonable grounds exist for a finding that
this registrant is no longer eligible to be registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser and that the registration should be
cancelled pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 204-1 under the Act requires any adviser that is
required to complete Form ADV to amend the form at least annually
and to submit the amendments electronically through the Investment
Adviser Registration Depository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice is also given that any interested person may, by June 26,
2023, at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request for a
hearing on the cancellation, accompanied by a statement as to the
nature of his or her interest, the reason for such request, and the
issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and he or
she may request that he or she be notified if the Commission should
order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be emailed to
the Commission's Secretary at [email protected].
    At any time after June 26, 2023, the Commission may issue an order
cancelling the registration, upon the basis of the information stated
above, unless an order for a hearing on the cancellation shall be
issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who
requested a hearing, or who requested to be advised as to whether a
hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this
matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any
postponements thereof. Any adviser whose registration is cancelled
under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the
Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's
rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juliet Han, Senior Counsel at 202-551-
6999; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Chief Counsel,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 200.30-5(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11821 Filed 6-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 88527]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28135]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 245 / Friday, December 22, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2192; Airspace Docket No. 23-AEA-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Wilmington, DE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: A final rule was published in the Federal Register on December
7, 2023, amending Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace for New
Castle Airport, Wilmington, DE. This action corrects the Class E legal
description for New Castle Airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 21, 2024. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Goodson, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (88 FR
85094, December 7, 2023) for Doc. No. FAA-2023-2192 is updating the
Class D and Class E surface airspace for New Castle Airport,
Wilmington, DE, by replacing Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air
Missions. After publication, the FAA found the Class E surface
description was inadvertently transposed. This action corrects this
error.

Correction to the Final Rule

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Class E surface
airspace amendment for Castle Airport, Wilmington, DE, in Docket No.
FAA-2023-2192, as published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2023
(88 FR 85094), is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

    On page 85095, in the second column, correct the E2 description for
New Castle Airport to read:

AEA DE E2 Wilmington, DE [Amended]

New Castle Airport, DE
    (Lat. 39[deg]40'43'' N, long. 75[deg]36'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of the New Castle Airport; this Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 13, 2023.
Lisa E. Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-28135 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2013-2016]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2014-1055]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse;
Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone
within Sector Boston's Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone on the waters in
the vicinity of John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston,
MA. Enforcement of this temporary security zone is for the high profile
court proceeding of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev at the Moakley Courthouse and is necessary to protect people,
property, and the port of Boston from subversive acts.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 15,
2015 until December 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 5, 2015 until January 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2014-1055 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2014-1055 in the
''Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search''. They are also 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Coast Guard Sector
Boston Waterways Management Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202)366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
USCG United States Coast Guard
U.S.C. United States Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory Information and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 particular temporary final rule. Due to the nature
of this high profile court case and the international interest that
this trial is expected to generate, the security zone is necessary to
help protect people, property, and the port of Boston from subversive
acts. The trial is expected to commence on January 5, 2015, and
therefore, it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM. Delaying this
regulation's effective date for comment would be contrary to the public
interest as immediate action is needed to ensure the safety in the
surrounding area.
    The Coast Guard did, however, publish an NPRM on November 20, 2014
(79 FR 69078), to establish a permanent security zone within Sector
Boston's Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone for a five hundred (500) yard
security zone, but granting vessels permission to enter the security
zone as long as such vessels remain beyond two hundred and fifty (250)
yards of the Moakley Courthouse, unless granted access by the COTP or
the COTP's representative, and as long as such vessels proceed through
the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed
necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the
Navigation Rules. We feel we need more time to adequately address the
comments received on the NPRM relating to the impact that a two hundred
and fifty (250) yard restriction on vessels will have on businesses.
    Accordingly, we have elected to establish this temporary five
hundred (500) yard security zone, but grant vessels permission to enter
the security zone as long as such vessels remain beyond one hundred
(100) yards of the Moakley Courthouse, unless granted access by the
COTP or the COTP's representative, and as long as such vessels proceed
through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than
that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise
required by the Navigation Rules. Publishing a new NPRM to reflect this
change and delaying the effective date would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest since it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to fulfill its statutory missions to protect people,
property, and the port of Boston from subversive acts.
    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 for the reason discussed above. For
the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard
finds that waiting 30 days to make this rule effective would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define security zones.
    The trial for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev, is expected to begin on January 5, 2015 at the John Joseph
Moakley United States Courthouse, Boston, MA. The trial is expected to
last upwards of five months. Due to the nature of this high profile
court case and the international interest that this trial is expected
to generate, the Federal Protective Police have requested the Coast
Guard issue a security zone around the waterside of the Courthouse to
help protect people, property, and the port of Boston from subversive
acts.

C. Discussion of Rule

    For the reason discussed above, the COTP, Sector Boston, is
establishing a temporary security zone. This temporary security zone
will be effective and enforced starting on January 5, 2015, and will
continue until the trial is completed, and if necessary, during the
sentencing phase. This security zone encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, from surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in
Boston, MA, and following any natural waterside seawall. Specific
geographic locations are specified in the regulatory text.
    The COTP hereby grants vessels permission to enter this five
hundred (500) yard security zone as long as such vessels remain beyond
one hundred (100) yards of the Moakley Courthouse unless granted access
by the COTP or the COTP's representative, and as long as such vessels
proceed through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster
than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise
required by the Navigation Rules.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. First, based on the comments and
feedback from the NPRM on the permanent security zone, we feel that
decreasing the two hundred and fifty (250) yards to one hundred (100)
yards will minimize the impact to vessels, such as commuter ferries
servicing Rowes Wharf, because they will be able to transit their
normal routes. Second, the Courthouse is likely to shut down the harbor
dock to water Taxis during the trial. Third, mariners may still pass
through the security zone, within one hundred (100) yards of the
Moakley Courthouse, with authorization from the COTP or a designated
on-scene representative. Finally, such notification of this security
zone will be published through the local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, and through extensive public outreach.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small

entities during rulemaking. The term ``small entities'' comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 persons.
    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 for all of the reasons discussed in the ``Regulatory Planning
and Review'' section above.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
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 temporary final rule involves the establishment of a
temporary security zone. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under, paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-1055 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-1055  Security Zone, John Joseph Moakley United States
Courthouse, Boston, MA.

    (a) Location. This security zone encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, from surface to bottom, within five hundred (500) yards of the
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse (Moakley Courthouse) in
Boston, MA, and following any natural waterside seawall configuration
enclosed by a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg]21'15'' N             71[deg]02'54'' W; Bounded by the curvature
                              of the seawall, thence to
42[deg]21'13'' N             71[deg]02'27'' W; thence to
42[deg]21'25'' N             71[deg]02'17'' W; thence to
42[deg]21'32'' N             71[deg]02'54'' W; Bounded by the curvature
                              of the seawall, thence to
42[deg]21'18'' N             71[deg]03'01'' W; thence to point of
                              origin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Regulations. While this security zone is being enforced, the
following regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.33,
apply:
    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone
without the

permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Boston. However,
the COTP hereby grants vessels permission to enter this security zone
as long as such vessels remain beyond one hundred (100) yards of the
Moakley Courthouse and as long as such vessels proceed through the area
with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary
to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation
Rules.
    (2) Although vessels have permission to enter the security zone
under the conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph, no person or
vessel may come within one hundred (100) yards of the Moakley
Courthouse under any conditions unless given express permission from
the COTP or the COTP's designated representatives.
    (3) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the security zone shall
comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's
representatives. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by
siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel
within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within
the security zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the
COTP's representatives.
    (4) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals
may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via VHF channel 16 or 617-
223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center) to obtain permission.
    (5) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.
    (c) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced with actual notice starting 12:01 a.m. on Monday,
January 5, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2015.
    (d) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Boston will give actual notice
to mariners for the purpose of enforcement of this temporary security
zone. Also, Sector Boston will notify the public to the greatest extent
possible of any period in which the Coast Guard will suspend
enforcement of this security zone.
    (e) COTP Representative. The COTP's representative may be any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or
local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to
act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast
Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a state or local law
enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.

    Dated: December 22, 2014.
J.C. O'Connor III,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2015-00327 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Additional Information Concerning the Counties Recommended to be Excluded from Nonattainment Boundaries One common assumption in the following discussions is that PM 2.5 is a problem on an annual basis. There are no violations of the PM 2.5 24 hour standard.

PM 2.5 monitors were placed in areas of high population and elevated levels of PM 10. The urban/ industrial portion of an MSA gemerally exhibits higher concentrations than the surrounding monitors. There is an acknowledged ` urban excess' of PM 2.5.

The following counties are part of MSAs which have at least one monitor exceeding the annual PM 2.5 standard. These counties, in general, are low in both population and emissions relative to the remainder of the MSA. Unlike ozone the effect of the urban core does not appear to extend beyond the central urban/ industrial portion of the MSA. While there is a regional component to PM 2.5, the extent of the areas experiencing levels above the standard appears to be limited in areal extent when compared to ozone nonattainment areas.

Fulton: Fulton County is part of the Toledo MSA. The MSA also includes Lucas and Wood Counties. Fulton County should be excluded from this nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Fulton County is located west of the Toledo urban/ industrial area.  Population: The population of Fulton County is less than 45,000 which is less than 7% of the total MSA ( 618,000).  Emissions: Fulton County emissions of VOC and NOX are both less than 5,000 tons per year while Lucas and Wood Counties combine for nearly 50,000 ton per year of each. SO2 emissions are less than 1000 ton per year. The surrounding area is rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Fulton County is over 96% wooded or agricultural.  Commuters: Between 12,000 and 13,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Brown: Brown County is part of the Cincinnati/ Hamilton interstate CMSA. The CMSA includes four additional counties in Ohio as well as counties in Kentucky and Indiana. Brown County should be excluded from this CMSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: The majority of Brown County is located south/ southeast of the Cincinnati urban/ industrial area. The area would not be expected to be significantly impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Cincinnati area.  Population: The population of Brown County is less than 45,000, which is less than 3% of the total CMSA ( 1,979,202)  Emissions: Brown County emissions of VOC and NOx are both less than 2,500 tons per year. CMSA emissions from the remaining Ohio counties are over 90,000 tons per year of VOC and over 150,000 tons per year of NOx. SO2 emissions are less than 1000 tons per year. The surrounding area is rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Brown County is over 97% wooded or agricultural.  Commuters: Between 11,000 and 12,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Carroll: Carroll County is part of the Canton MSA. The MSA also includes Stark County. Carroll County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Carroll County is south of the Canton urban/ industrial area. The area would not be expected to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Canton area.  Population: The population of Carroll County is less than 30,000 while Stark County has over 375,000.  Emissions: Carroll County emissions of VOC and NOx are both less than 2,000 tons per year. Stark County has over 20,000 tons per year of each. SO2 emissions are less than 1000 tons per year. The surrounding area is rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Carroll County is over 96% wooded or agricultural.  Commuters: Between 7,000 and 8,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Belmont: Belmont County is part of the Wheeling West Virginia interstate MSA. The MSA also includes Ohio and Marshall Counties in West Virginia. Belmont County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Belmont County is located west of the Wheeling urban/ industrial area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Wheeling area.  Population: The population of Belmont County is just over 70,000. The MSA total is 153,172. Population in both Belmont County and the MSA is decreasing ( 3.8% 1990 2000).  Emissions: Belmont County emissions of VOC and NOx are 4,750 and 14,342 tons per year, respectively. It should be noted that the primary NOx source in Belmont County is subject to the NOx transport rules and will be significantly reduced. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 11,572 and 72,905 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are approximately 50,000 tons per year, primarily due to a power plant subject to acid rain provisions and future regional controls. The surrounding area is rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Belmont County is over 95% wooded and agricultural.  Commuters: Between 11,000 and 12,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Pickaway: Pickaway County is part of the Columbus MSA. The revised MSA also includes Franklin, Delaware, Fairfield, Licking, Madison, Union and Morrow Counties. Pickaway County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Pickaway County is located south of the Columbus area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Columbus area.  Population: The population of Pickaway County is just over 52,000. The MSA total is 1,540,157. Pickaway County grew by less than 5,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Pickaway County emissions of VOC and NOx are 3,736 and 5,914 tons per year, respectively. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 90,632 and 109,802 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions areless than 10,000 tons per year. The surrounding area, other than Columbus is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Pickaway County is over 97% agriculture and wooded.  Commuters: Between 14,000 and 15,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Madison: Madison County is part of the Columbus MSA. The revised MSA also includes Franklin, Delaware, Fairfield, Licking, Pickaway, Union and Morrow Counties. Madison County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Madison County is located west of the Columbus area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Columbus area.  Population: The population of Madison County is just over 40,000. The MSA total is 1,540,157. Madison County grew by less than 3,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Madison County emissions of VOC and NOx are 2,700 and 3,400 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are less than 300 tons per year. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 90,632 and 109,802 tons per year, respectively. The surrounding area, other than Columbus is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Madison County is over 98% agriculture and wooded.  Commuters: Between 13,000 and 14,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Geauga: Geauga County is part of the Cleveland/ Akron CMSA. The CMSA also includes Cuyahoga, Summit, Lake, Lorain, Ashtabula, Medina and Portage Counties. Geauga County should be excluded from the CMSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Geauga County is located north and east of Akron and Cleveland. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Cleveland or Akron areas.  Population: The population of Geauga County is just under 91,000. The CMSA total is 2,945,831. Geauga County grew by less than 10,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Geauga County emissions of VOC and NOx are 5,000 and 4,300 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are less than 700 tons per year. CMSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 161,866 and 187,512 tons per year, respectively. The surrounding area, other than Cleveland and Akron is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Geauga County is 85% agricultural and wooded and 7% shrub and scrub.  Commuters: Between 33,000 and 34,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Ashtabula: Ashtabula County is part of the Cleveland/ Akron CMSA. The CMSA also includes Cuyahoga, Summit, Lake, Lorain, Geauga, Medina and Portage Counties. Geauga County should be excluded from the CMSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Ashtabula County is located two counties east of Akron and Cleveland. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Cleveland or Akron areas.  Population: The population of Ashtabula County is just under 103,000. The CMSA total is 2,945,831. Geauga County grew by less than 3,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Ashtabula County emissions of VOC and NOx are 11,400 and 15,000 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are less than 28,000 tons per year. CMSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 161,866 and 187,512 tons per year, respectively. The surrounding area, other than Cleveland and Akron is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Ashtabula County is 83% agricultural and wooded and 7.5% shrub and scrub.  Commuters: Between 13,000 and 14,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Washington: Washington County is part of the Parkersburg MSA. The MSA also includes Wood County, West Virginia. Washington County should be excluded from the MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity: Washington County is located north of the Parkersburg urban area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor area.  Population: The population of Washington County is under 64,000. The MSA total is 151,237. Washington County grew by 1000 since 1990.  Emissions: Washington County emissions of VOC and NOx are 5,355 and 34,233 tons per year. SO2 emissions are181,787 tons per year.  Land use: Washington County is 94% agricultural and wooded.  Commuters: Between 13,000 and 14,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

The Counties below were included as part of the redefined MSA's but should be excluded from the nonattainment areas.

Union: Union County is part of the revised Columbus MSA. The revised MSA also includes Franklin, Delaware, Fairfield, Licking, Madison, Pickaway and Morrow Counties. Union County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Union County is located west of the Columbus area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Columbus area.  Population: The population of Union County is just over 40,000. The MSA total is 1,540,157. Union County grew by less than 10,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Union County emissions of VOC and NOx are 2,533 and 2,325 tons per year, respectively. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 90,632 and 109,802 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are less than 1000 tons per year. The surrounding area, other than Columbus and southern Delaware Counties is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Union County is over 95% agriculture and wooded.  Commuters: Between 16,000 and 17,000 workers commute in or out of the county. Morrow: Morrow County is part of the revised Columbus MSA. The revised MSA also includes Franklin, Delaware, Fairfield, Licking, Madison, Pickaway and Union Counties. Morrow County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Morrow County is located north of the Columbus area beyond the expected peak Columbus impact area.  Population: The population of Morrow County is under 40,000. The MSA total is 1,540,157. Morrow County grew by less than 1,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Morrow County emissions of VOC and NOx are 2,049 and 2,611 tons per year, respectively. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 90,632 and 109,802 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are less than 300 tons per year. The surrounding area, other than Columbus and southern Deleware Counties is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Morrow County is over 98% agricultural and wooded.  Commuters: Between 8,000 and 9,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Ottawa: Ottawa County is part of the revised Toledo MSA. The revised MSA also includes Lucas, Wood and Fulton Counties. Ottawa County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Union County is located east southeast of the Toledo area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Toledo area.  Population: The population of Ottawa County is just over 40,000. The MSA total is 618,203. Ottawa County grew by less than 1,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Ottawa County emissions of VOC and NOx are 5,815 and 4,974 tons per year, respectively. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 55,000 tons of each. SO2 emissions are less than 1000 tons per year. The surrounding is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Ottawa County is over 93% agricultural, wooded, open water ( excluding Lake Erie) and wetlands.  Commuters: Between 12,000 and 13,000 workers commute in or out of the county.

Preble: Preble County is part of the revised Dayton MSA. The revised MSA also includes Montgomery, Greene, Clark and Miami Counties. Preble County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment area due to:  Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Preble County is located west of the Dayton area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Dayton area.  Population: The population of Preble County is just under 43,000 The MSA total is 950,558. Preble County grew by less than 3,000 since 1990.  Emissions: Preble County emissions of VOC and NOx are 2,711 and 2,960 tons per year, respectively. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 63,092 and 52,756 tons per year, respectively. SO2 emissions are less than 500 tons per year. The surrounding area, other than Dayton is predominantly rural/ agricultural.  Land use: Preble County is over 97% agriculture and wooded.  Commuters: Between 11,000 and 12,000 workers commute in or out of the county.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8450]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01606]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79821; File No. SR-ICC-2016-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Provide for the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap
Contracts

January 18, 2017.
    On November 18, 2016, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to provide for the
clearance of additional credit default swap contracts. (File No. SR-
ICC-2016-014). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 7, 2016.\3\ To date, the Commission
has not received comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79439 (Dec. 1, 2016), 81
FR 88291 (Dec. 7, 2016) (SR-ICC-2016-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is January 20, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposes to revise the ICC
Rulebook (the ``Rules'') to provide for the clearance of Standard
Australian Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, ``STAC
Contracts'') and Standard Australian Financial Corporate Single Name
CDS contracts (collectively, ``STAFC Contracts''). The Commission finds
it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take
action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to
consider ICC's proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \5\ of
the Act, designates February 24, 2017, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-ICC-2016-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01606 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Corrections]
[Page 20367]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 230, 232, and 239

[RELEASE NOS. 33-8891; 34-57280; 39-2453; IC-28145; FILE NO. S7-12-07]
RIN 3235-AJ87

Electronic Filing and Revision of Form D

Correction

    In rule document E8-3545 beginning on page 10592 in the issue of
Wednesday, February 27, 2008, make the following correction:
    On page 10609, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, in
the second to last line, ``Form D'' should read ``Form ID''.

[FR Doc. Z8-3545 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61220-61221]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24212]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9059-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed October 25, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through November 1, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its

comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210164, Draft, FERC, WY, Clear Creek Expansion Project,
Comment Period Ends: 12/20/2021, Contact: Office of External Affairs
866-208-3372.
EIS No. 20210165, Final, CHSRA, CA, Burbank to Los Angeles Project
Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement, Review Period Ends: 12/06/2021, Contact: Scott Rothenberg
916-403-6936.
EIS No. 20210166, Final, FHWA, AZDOT, AZ, Sonoran Corridor Tier 1 Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Contact: Ammon
Heier<PHONE_NUMBER>. Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FHWA has issued a single
document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and
record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA
does not apply to this action.
EIS No. 20210167, Final, FERC, LA, Alberta Xpress and Lease Capacity
Abandonment Projects, Review Period Ends: 12/06/2021, Contact: Office
of External Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-24212 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P