[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61591]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0055; FRL-11391-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC
in Petroleum Refineries (EPA ICR Number 0983.17, OMB Control Number
2060-0067), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
September 30, 2023. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on July 22, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before October 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0055, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to:
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this specific information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through July 22, 2023. An agency may
neither conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register
on July 22, 2022, during a 60-day comment period (87 FR 43843). This
notice allows for an additional 30-days for public comment. Supporting
documents, which explains in detail the information that the EPA will
be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The
docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov, or in person at the
EPA Docket Center, WJC Clinton West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-
566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
hrrp://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG)
apply to compressors, valves, pumps, pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges or other
connectors in VOC service at petroleum refineries that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 4, 1983,
and on or before November 7, 2006. The NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC
in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGGa) apply to
compressors, valves, pumps, pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges or other
connectors in VOC service at petroleum refineries that commence either
construction, or reconstruction, or modification after November 7,
2006. In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of petroleum
refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts GGG and GGGa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 116 (total).
    Frequency of response: Semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 184,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $22,000,000 (per year), includes $0 for
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the
most recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This is due to two considerations: (1) the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for this industry is very low or non-existent, so there is no
significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in
the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry
growth, there are also no changes in the capital/startup and/or
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. There is a slight increase in
costs, which is wholly due to the use of updated labor rates. This ICR
uses labor rates from the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report
(September 2021) to calculate respondent burden costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-19276 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26666-26667]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-472-000]

Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization: Gulf South
Pipeline Company, LP

    Take notice that on May 28, 2019, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046 filed
in Docket No. CP19-472-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), requesting authorization to replace two, 6,700
horsepower (HP) natural gas turbine-driven centrifugal compressor units
with one, approximately 11,107 HP, Solar Taurus 70 compressor package,
including the installation and modification of station piping, valves
and other appurtenant facilities at Gulf South's existing Arnaudville
Compressor Station (Arnaudville Replacement Project) located on Gulf
South's Index 330 mainline in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. Gulf South
states that the Arnaudville Replacement Project will result in a minor
decrease in station HP, but will not affect daily design capability or
maximum daily capability, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Juan
Eligio, Jr. Supervisor of Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email are [email protected]; or Payton
Barrientos, Senior

Regulatory Analyst, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza,
Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
are [email protected]
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commentors, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: June 3, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12052 Filed 6-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26358-26359]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0892]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City,
NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Route 1 & 9 Bridge, mile 1.8, and Route 7 Bridge, mile 3.1,
both crossing the Hackensack River, at Jersey City, NJ. The bridge
owner, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), submitted a
request to allow two hours advance notice for nighttime transits due to
infrequent bridge openings. This final rule would align the advance
notice requirement for the PATH Bridge at mile 3.0.

DATES: This rule is effective June 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2019-0892 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, First Coast Guard District, Project
Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On December 19, 2019, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ in the Federal Register (84 FR
69687). No comments were received in response to the NPRM.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33
U.S.C. 499. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge at mile 1.8 over the Hackensack
River at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet
at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water. Horizontal clearance
is approximately 200 feet. The waterway users include recreational and
commercial vessels including tugboat/barge combinations.
    The Route 7 Bridge at mile 3.1 over the Hackensack River at Jersey
City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high
water and 40 feet at mean low water. Horizontal clearance is
approximately 158 feet. The waterway users include recreational and
commercial vessels including tugboat/barge combinations.
    The existing regulation, 33 CFR 117.5, requires both bridges open
on signal at all times. NJDOT has requested that overnight hours
between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. be modified to two hours advance notice.
This rule change will allow for more efficient and economic operation
of the bridge while meeting the reasonable needs of navigation.
    The bridge logs show that between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., the Route 1 &
9 Bridge had 27 annual openings in 2017, 12 annual openings in 2018,
and 16 annual openings in 2019. During the subject hours, the Route 7
Bridge had 16 annual openings in 2017, 1 annual opening in 2018, and 0
annual openings in 2019.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided 60 days for comment regarding this rule
and no comments were received.
    There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM.
    The final rule provides both Route 1 & 9 and Route 7 Bridges shall
open on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall
open on signal if at least two hours advance notice is given by calling
the number posted at the bridge. It is the Coast Guard's opinion that
the rule meets the reasonable needs of marine traffic.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard has developed this rule after considering numerous
statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders,
and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The Coast Guard believes this rule is not a significant regulatory
action. The bridge will still open for all vessel traffic after a two-
hour advance notice is given during overnight periods. We believe that
this change to the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.723
will meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

B. 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. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The bridges provide 35 feet of vertical
clearance at mean high water that should accommodate all the present
vessel traffic except deep draft vessels. The bridge will continue to
open on signal for any vessel, except between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., when
a two-hour advance notice will be required. The Coast Guard certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule

would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of
the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.723 by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as
follows:

Sec.  117.723  Hackensack River.

* * * * *
    (j) The draw of the Route 1 & 9 Bridge, mile 1.8, at Jersey City,
shall open on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw
shall open on signal if at least two hours advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
    (k) The draw of the Route 7 Bridge, mile 3.1, at Jersey City, shall
open on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall
open on signal if at least two hours advance notice is given by calling
the number posted at the bridge.

    Dated: April 21, 2020.
A.J. Tiongson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2020-08806 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21244-21246]
[DOCID:fr21ap08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0196; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-002-AD;
Amendment 39-15482; AD 2008-09-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Further to a new fracture in flight of a CAP 10B wing in June
2003, the investigation in process seems to point out that a wrong
application of CAP 10B Service Bulletin No. 16 (CAP 10B-57-004)
would lead to the impossibility of detecting the potential spar
damage while performing the Type Certificate holder upper spar
flange inspection.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 27, 2008.
    On May 27, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000913GB,
dated February 4, 2002; APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000914GB, dated
February 4, 2002; and APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000915GB, dated
February 4, 2002, listed in this AD.
    As of July 23, 1993 (58 FR 31342, June 2, 1993), the Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Avions
Mudry & CIE Service Bulletin CAP 10B No. 16, dated April 27, 1992,
listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at 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: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2008
(73 FR 9968) and proposed to supersede AD 2003-04-02, Amendment 39-
13050 (68 FR 7904, February 19, 2003). That NPRM proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Further to a new fracture in flight of a CAP 10B wing in June
2003, the investigation in process seems to point out that a wrong
application of CAP 10B Service Bulletin No. 16 (CAP 10B-57-004)
would lead to the impossibility of detecting the potential spar
damage while performing the Type Certificate holder upper spar
flange inspection.

The MCAI requires you to check that the No. 1 wing rib has been
modified, comply with load factors and operating limitations, and do
repetitive inspections of the upper and lower spar flanges and landing
gear attachment blocks.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take
about 20 work-hours per product to comply with basic requirements of
this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $49,600 or $1,600 per product.
    The estimated total cost on U.S. operators includes the cumulative
costs associated with those airplanes affected by AD 2003-04-02 and
those costs associated with the new actions that would be added in this
AD.

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

    We determined that 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 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); and
    (3) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 removing Amendment 39-13050 (68 FR
7904, February 19, 2003) and adding the following new AD:

2008-09-02 APEX Aircraft: Amendment 39-15482; Docket No. FAA-2008-
0196; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-002-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 27,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-04-02, Amendment 39-13050.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model CAP 10B airplanes, serial numbers
(SNs) 01, 02, 03, 04, and 1 through 282, certificated in any
category, that have not been fitted with a replacement wood/carbon
wing following application of major change 000302.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Further to a new fracture in flight of a CAP 10B wing in June
2003, the investigation in process seems to point out that a wrong
application of CAP 10B Service Bulletin No. 16 (CAP 10B-57-004)
would lead to the impossibility of detecting the potential spar
damage while performing the Type Certificate holder upper spar
flange inspection.

The MCAI requires you to check that the No. 1 wing rib has been
modified, comply with load factors and operating limitations, and do
repetitive inspections of the upper and lower spar flanges and
landing gear attachment blocks.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For Model CAP 10B airplanes with SNs 01, 02, 03, 04, and 1
through 263, within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
July 23, 1993 (the compliance date retained from AD 2003-04-02),
unless already done, install a permanent inspection opening in the
No. 1 wing rib following Avions Mudry Service Bulletin CAP10B No.
16, dated April 27, 1992. Inspection openings are incorporated
during production for airplanes having a serial number of 264 or
higher.
    (2) For all affected airplanes, initially inspect the upper wing
spar cap, the main wing spar undersurface, and the landing gear
attachment blocks for cracks within the next 55 hours TIS after
April 4, 2003 (the compliance date retained from AD 2003-04-02)
following APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000913GB, dated February 4,
2002; APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000914GB, dated February 4, 2002;
and APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000915GB, dated February 4, 2002.
Repetitively inspect the upper wing spar cap and the main wing spar
undersurface thereafter at intervals not to exceed 55 hours TIS.
Repetitively inspect the landing gear attachment blocks thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours TIS.
    (3) For all affected airplanes, before further flight if any
cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD, do the following:
    (i) Obtain a repair scheme from the manufacturer through the FAA
at the address specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD;
    (ii) Incorporate this repair scheme; and
    (iii) Continue to inspect as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD.
    (4) For all affected airplanes, unless already done, do the
following actions:
    (i) Load factors limitation: Before further flight, as of May
27, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), the load factors
limitation for solo flight is +5 and -3.5 Gs and when 2 persons are
on board is +4.3 and -3.5 Gs.
    (ii) Flick (snap roll) maneuvers speed limitation: Before
further flight, as of May 27, 2008 (the effective date of this AD),
for positive and negative flick maneuvers, the airspeed limitation
is 160 km/hour (86 knots).
    (5) For all affected airplanes, before further flight after May
27, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), fabricate a placard:
    (i) Incorporate the following words (using at least \1/8\-inch
letters) in the placard and install this placard on the instrument
panel within the pilot's clear view: ``THE NEVER EXCEED AIRSPEED FOR
POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE FLICK MANEUVERS IS 160 KM/H (86 KNOTS). THE
LOAD FACTORS LIMITATION FOR SOLO FLIGHT IS +5 AND -3.5 Gs AND WHEN 2
PERSONS ARE ON BOARD IS +4.3 AND -3.5 Gs.''
    (ii) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot
certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may fabricate the placard required in
paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft
records showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance
with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: This AD does not include the requirement from the MCAI
to route the request to operate beyond the load factors limitation
and flick (snap roll) maneuvers speed limitation through the
Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC). You
may make this request to the FAA following paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI French AD 2003-375(A), dated October 1, 2003;
Avions Mudry & CIE Service Bulletin CAP 10B No. 16, dated April 27,
1992, APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000913GB, dated February 4, 2002;
APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000914GB, dated February 4, 2002; and
APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000915GB, dated February 4, 2002, for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Avions Mudry & CIE Service Bulletin CAP 10B No.
16, dated April 27, 1992; APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000913GB,
dated February 4, 2002; APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000914GB, dated
February 4, 2002; and APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000915GB, dated
February 4, 2002, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000913GB,
dated February 4, 2002; APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000914GB, dated
February 4, 2002; and APEX Aircraft Document No. 1000915GB, dated
February 4, 2002, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) On July 23, 1993 (58 FR 31342, June 2, 1993), the Director
of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by
reference of Avions Mudry & CIE Service Bulletin CAP 10B No. 16,
dated April 27, 1992.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact APEX
Aircraft, Bureau de Navigabilit[eacute], 1, route de Troyes, 21121
DAROIS--France; telephone: +33 380 35 65 10; fax +33 380 35 65 15;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.apex-
aircraft.com.
    (4) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or 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 April 11, 2008.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8360 Filed 4-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 60 (Friday, March 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17374-17375]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release no. 33821]

Investment Company Act of 1940; Order Under Sections 6(c),
12(d)(1)(J), 17(b), 17(d) and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 and Rule 17d-1 Thereunder Granting Exemptions From Specified
Provisions of the Investment Company Act and Certain Rules Thereunder

March 23, 2020.
    The current outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has
disrupted activities around the world. In light of the current
situation, we are issuing this Order providing exemptions from certain
requirements of the Investment Company Act. The exemptions provide
additional flexibility for (1) registered open-end management
investment companies other than money market funds (``open-end funds'')
and (2) insurance company separate accounts registered as unit
investment trusts (``separate accounts'') to obtain short-term funding.
    In light of the current and potential effects of COVID-19, the
Commission finds that the exemptions set forth below, as applicable:

    are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Investment Company Act;
    permit transactions the terms of which, including the
consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do
not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned;
    permit transactions under the terms of which the participation
of each registered investment company is consistent with the
provisions, policies, and purposes of the Investment Company Act,
and not on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of
other participants; and
    are necessary and appropriate to the exercise of the powers
conferred on it by the Investment Company Act.

    The necessity for prompt action of the Commission does not permit
prior notice of the Commission's action.

I. Time Period for the Exemptive Relief

    The relief provided in each of the following Sections of this Order
is limited to the period from (and including) the date of this Order to
(and including) the date to be specified in a public notice from
Commission staff stating that the relief will terminate, which date
will be at least two weeks from the date of the notice and no earlier
than June 30, 2020.
    The Commission will continue to monitor the current situation and
may issue other relief as necessary or appropriate.

II. Ability of Open-End Fund or Separate Account To Borrow From an
Affiliated Person; Ability of an Affiliated Person To Make
Collateralized Loans

    It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 6(c), 17(b) and 38(a) of the
Investment Company Act that:
    For the period specified in Section I, an open-end fund or a
separate account is exempt from section 12(d)(3) of the Investment
Company Act to the extent necessary to permit it to borrow money from
any affiliated person, or affiliated person of such affiliated person,
that is not itself a registered investment company, and an affiliated
person of an open-end fund or separate account, or an affiliated person
of such affiliated person, is exempt from section 17(a) to the extent
necessary to permit it to make collateralized loans to such open-end
fund or separate account, provided that the conditions below are
satisfied.
    For the period specified in Section I, an open-end fund is exempt
from section 18(f)(1) of the Investment Company Act to the extent
necessary to permit it to borrow money from any affiliated person, or
affiliated person of such affiliated person, that is not a bank and is
not itself a registered investment company, provided that the
conditions below are satisfied.

Conditions

    (a) The Board of Directors of the open-end fund, including a
majority of the Directors who are not interested persons of the open-
end fund, or the insurance company on behalf of the separate account,
reasonably determines that such borrowing:
    (i) Is in the best interests of the registered investment company
and its shareholders or unit holders; and
    (ii) will be for the purpose of satisfying shareholder redemptions.
    (b) Prior to relying on the relief for the first time, the open-end
fund or separate account notifies the Commission staff via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating that it is relying on this Order.

III. Interfund Lending Arrangements for Registered Investment Companies
With Existing Interfund Lending Orders

    It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 6(c), 12(d)(1)(J), 17(b),17(d)
and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder that:
    For the period specified in Section I, any registered investment
company currently able to rely on a Commission order permitting an
interfund lending

and borrowing facility (``existing IFL order'') may:
    (a) Make loans through the facility in an aggregate amount that
does not exceed 25 percent of its current net assets at the time of the
loan notwithstanding any lower limitation in the existing IFL order;
    (b) Borrow (if permitted under the existing IFL order to be a
borrower) or make loans through the facility for any term
notwithstanding any conditions limiting the term of such loans,
provided that (i) the term of any interfund loan made in reliance on
this Order does not extend beyond the expiration of this temporary
relief, (ii) the Board of Directors of the registered investment
company, including a majority of the Directors who are not interested
persons of the registered investment company, reasonably determines
that the maximum term for interfund loans to be made in reliance on
this Order is appropriate, and (iii) the loans will remain callable and
subject to early repayment on the terms described in the existing IFL
order; and
    (c) Avail itself of the relief provided in Section V below
notwithstanding any condition of the existing IFL order that
incorporates limits set forth in its fundamental restrictions.
limitations or non-fundamental policies;

provided that, in each case:

    (a) Any loan under the facility is otherwise made in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the existing IFL order;
    (b) Prior to relying on the relief for the first time, the
registered investment company notifies the Commission staff via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating that it is relying on this Order;
and
    (c) Prior to relying on the relief for the first time, the
registered investment company discloses on its public website that it
is relying on a Commission exemptive order that modifies the terms of
its existing IFL order to permit additional flexibility to provide or
obtain short-term funding from its interfund lending and borrowing
facility.

IV. Interfund Lending Arrangements for Registered Investment Companies
Without Existing Interfund Lending Orders

    It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 6(c), 12(d)(1)(J), 17(b), 17(d)
and 38(a) of the Investment Company Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder that:
    For the period specified in Section I, any registered management
investment company that is not currently able to rely on a Commission
order permitting an interfund lending and borrowing facility may
establish and participate in such a facility as set forth in an
exemptive order permitting such a facility that the Commission has
issued within the twelve months preceding the date of this Order
(``recent IFL precedent''); provided that:
    (a) The registered investment company must satisfy the terms and
conditions for relief in the recent IFL precedent (including with
respect to whether it may participate as a borrower), except:
    i. It may rely on the relief provided in Section III above subject
to its terms and conditions (other than the notice requirement of
condition (c) in Section III);
    ii. It need not satisfy the condition in the recent IFL precedent
requiring prior disclosure in its registration statement or shareholder
report; and
    iii. Money market funds may not participate as borrowers in the
interfund facility;
    (b) Prior to relying on the relief for the first time, the
registered investment company notifies the Commission staff via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating that it is relying on this Order
and identifying the recent IFL precedent that it is relying on; and
    (c) The registered investment company:
    i. Discloses on its public website, prior to relying on the relief
for the first time, that it is relying on the relief to utilize an
interfund lending and borrowing facility.
    ii. To the extent it files a prospectus supplement, or a new or
amended registration statement or shareholder report, while it is
relying on this relief, updates its disclosure regarding the material
facts about its participation or intended participation in the
facility.

V. Ability of a Registered Open-End Investment Company To Deviate From
Its Fundamental Policy With Respect To Lending or Borrrowing

    It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 38(a) of the
Investment Company Act:
    That for the period specified in Section I, an open-end fund is
exempt from sections 13(a)(2) and 13(a)(3) of the Investment Company
Act to the extent necessary to permit it to enter into otherwise lawful
lending or borrowing transactions that deviate from any relevant policy
recited in its registration statement without prior shareholder
approval; provided that:
    (a) The Board of Directors of the open-end fund, including a
majority of the Directors who are not interested persons of the
investment company, reasonably determines that such lending or
borrowing is in the best interests of the registered investment company
and its shareholders;
    (b) The open-end fund promptly notifies its shareholders of the
deviation by filing a prospectus supplement and including a statement
on the applicable fund's public website; and
    (c) Prior to relying on the relief for the first time, the
registered investment company notifies the Commission staff via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating that it is relying on this Order.

    By the Commission.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06392 Filed 3-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61609]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1136; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-26]

Establishment and Modification of Class E Airspace; Deer Park, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish and amend existing Class E airspace
at Deer Park, WA, to accommodate aircraft using the existing Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Deer Park, WA. This will improve the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. 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 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 19, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Deer
Park, WA (75 FR 41774). Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and
effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E surface airspace, and adding additional
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at
Deer Park Airport, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing new RNAV (GPS)
SIAPs at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this 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 U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
amends controlled airspace at Deer Park Airport, Deer Park, WA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANM WA E2 Deer Park, WA [New]

Deer Park Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]58'01'' N., long. 117[deg]25'43'' W.)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of Deer Park Airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WA, E5 Deer Park, WA [Modified]

Deer Park Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]58'01'' N., long. 117[deg]25'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Deer Park Airport, excluding the
Spokane, WA, Class E airspace area.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 23, 2010.
Lori Andriesen,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-24804 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 15503-15504]
[DOCID:fr24mr08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 618-175]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

March 14, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for Temporary Variance of Minimum
Flow Requirement.
    b. Project No.: 618-175.
    c. Date Filed: March 13, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Jordan Dam.
    f. Location: On the Coosa River, in Elmore, Chilton, and Coosa
Counties, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Barry Lovett, Alabama Power Company, 600 N.
18th Street, P.O. Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Peter Yarrington<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6129.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:
March 28, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company (APC) is
requesting a temporary variance of the Jordan Dam Project's minimum
flow requirements due to continuing drought conditions in the
southeast, and to ensure, to the extent possible, that there will be
sufficient water available in the Coosa River to support both reservoir
and downstream environmental, municipal and industrial water supply and
navigation needs. Beginning April 1, the project license requires a
continuous minimum base flow of 4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) for
18 hours per day and a pulse flow release for 6 hours per day. During
June, the base and pulse flows are ramped down in daily increments, to
a continuous 2,000 cfs, which is required up to March 31. APC is
requesting a variance to release from Jordan Dam no less than a
continuous flow of 2,000 cfs ( 5 percent) from April 1
through December 31, 2008, unless further reduction in flows becomes
necessary to address emergency operating conditions. Any reduction in
flows would be achieved by ramping down flows by no more than 66.7 cfs
per day. The licensee is also proposing to conduct weekly conference
calls with the resource agencies to discuss project releases and
operations to address drought related issues.
    l. Location of the Application: The filing is available for
inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (P-618) in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-
mail or new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(I)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5832 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 38950-38953]
[DOCID:fr10jy06-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54088; File No. SR-NASD-2004-135]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto, and Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Proposed Rule
Change, to Adopt NASD Rule 2441 to Require Disclosure and Consent When
Trading on a Net Basis With Customers

June 30, 2006

I. Introduction

    On September 1, 2004, the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 require disclosure and consent
when trading on a net basis with customers. NASD amended the proposed
rule change on February 16, 2005,\3\ February 25, 2005,\4\ and March
21, 2005.\5\ The

proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, was
published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on April 6,
2005.\6\ The Commission received three comments on the proposal.\7\ On
September 13, 2005, NASD responded to the comments, and amended the
proposed rule change.\8\ This order provides notice of filing of
Amendment No. 4, and approves the proposed rule change as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and grants accelerated approval to Amendment
No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Amendment No. 1.
    \4\ See Amendment No. 2.
    \5\ See Amendment No. 3.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51457 (March 31,
2005), 70 FR 17489.
    \7\ See April 20, 2005 letter from David Sieradzki, Esquire,
Milbank Tweed, to Lourdes Gonzales, Division of Market Regulation,
SEC (via e-mail) (``Milbank Letter''); April 27, 2005 letter from
Klindt Ginsberg, Managing Director, The Seidler Companies, Inc. (via
e-mail) (``Seidler Letter''); May 4, 2005 letter from Amal Aly and
Ann Vlcek, Vice Presidents and Associate General Counsels,
Securities Industry Association (``SIA''), to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, SEC (``SIA Letter'').
    \8\ See Amendment No 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received a total of three comment letters on the
NASD's proposal to require consent and disclosure when trading with
customers on a net basis. One commenter requested clarification with
respect to the interplay between the proposal and NASD Rule 4632. The
other two comment letters expressed various objections to the proposal.
The following summary of comments provides an overview of the
commenters' concerns.
     With Respect to Non-Institutional Clients, Requiring
Mandatory, Written, Pre-trade Disclosure and Consent on an Order-By-
Order Basis is Unnecessarily Burdensome to Broker-Dealers
    One commenter asserts that the rule as proposed places an
unnecessary burden on broker-dealers when trading on a net basis on
behalf of non-institutional clients. The rule requires that, for non-
institutional clients, broker-dealers must provide pre-trade disclosure
to and obtain consent from the client in writing on an order-by-order
basis.\9\ The commenter stated that ``the actions detailed in this
proposed rule change would be confusing to the client, costly to the
firm, and impossible to manage and track on an order-by-order basis.''
\10\ The commenter expressed concern that ``[t]he proposed rule would
burden the firm with additional time and money spent on record keeping
and auditing practices'' and hinder a broker-dealer's ability to obtain
best execution of its customers' orders.\11\ Similarly, another
commenter--while agreeing in principle with disclosure and consent
rules--stated that the requirement ``for a knowing, written consent on
an order-by-order basis * * * is impractical where most orders are not
taken in writing, and there is no opportunity to obtain [such a
consent].'' \12\ This commenter proposed modifying the rule to permit
the use of negative consent letters (similar to what the rule requires
vis-[agrave]-vis institutional clients) or of obtaining oral consent on
an order-by-order basis and to permit such consent to be evidenced on
the customer order ticket.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This contrasts with the lower burden for institutional
clients under the proposed rule, in which broker-dealers may fulfill
their disclosure and consent requirements via a one-time ``negative
consent'' letter. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51457
(March 31, 2005), 70 FR 17489 (April 6, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-135).
    \10\ Seidler Letter.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ SIA Letter at 5.
    \13\ SIA Letter at 2, 5. The letter further recommended that,
for firms choosing to obtain oral consent on an order-by-order
basis, pre-trade disclosure be required in the form of a one-time
comprehensive disclosure statement, and also that, for fiduciaries
of non-institutional customers granted trading discretion who on
their own qualify as an ``institutional account'' under the proposed
rule, members be permitted to obtain the consent of such fiduciaries
in the same manner as permitted for their institutional customers.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the two commenters opined that the additional burdens
placed on broker-dealers by the rule could not be justified by any
added benefit to investors.\14\ One commenter pointed out that, because
the advent of decimal pricing in 2000 substantially reduced the
practice of net trading generally, the rule would have little practical
benefit.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Seidler Letter (``Having the client sign a
disclosure document prior to each and every trade provides no
benefit. It will confuse the client and will provide no additional
information that is not available elsewhere.''); SIA Letter at 5
(``[N]o purpose is served by imposing onerous and impractical
requirements on customers who do wish to consent to [trading on a
net basis].'').
    \15\ SIA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     With Respect to Institutional Clients, Requiring
Disclosure and Consent via Negative-Consent Letters is Unnecessarily
Burdensome to Broker-Dealers
    Regarding institutional clients, the commenters similarly objected
to the rule's consent and disclosure requirements via a ``negative
consent'' letter as unnecessarily burdensome. One commenter stated that
the rule was wholly unnecessary because ``investors already receive a
`net' trading disclosure when an account is opened * * * [and]
institutional investors by nature are accredited and sophisticated.''
\16\ Another commenter, citing the declining practice of net trading
since decimalization, argued that ``the costs and burden of sending,
receiving and tracking negative consent letters are excessive in light
of the fact that institutional customers would receive the requisite
level of protection, if not greater, by providing verbal consent on an
order-by-order basis.'' \17\ This commenter therefore suggested
modifying the proposed rule to allow the use of negative consent
letters or of obtaining oral consent on an order-by-order basis and to
permit the consent to be evidenced on the customer order ticket.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Seidler Letter.
    \17\ SIA Letter at 4.
    \18\ Id. at 2, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Member Firms and Other Registered Broker-Dealers Should Be
Explicitly Exempt from the Proposed Rule
    One commenter requested that the NASD clarify the proposed rule
change to ``confirm that member firms and other registered broker-
dealers are exempt from the requirements of the Proposed Rule, as they
are neither institutional nor non-institutional customers.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Proposed Rule Should Be Clarified With Respect to Net
Orders Routed Between Broker-Dealers
    The commenter further requested that the NASD clarify the proposed
rule change to ``confirm [that] an executing broker-dealer handling an
order marked `net' routed to it from an originating broker-dealer has
no consent and disclosure obligation to the customer of the originating
broker-dealer for whom it is handling the order.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ SIA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Proposed Rule Potentially Conflicts With Rule
4632(d)(3)(A) Regarding Reporting Trades Exclusive of Any Mark-Up,
Mark-Down, or Service Charge
    One commenter noted a potential conflict between the proposed rule
and Rule 4632(d)(3)(A), which states that trades must be reported
exclusive of any mark-up, mark-down, or service charge.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Milbank Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The NASD's Response to Comments

    NASD responded to the comments in Amendment No. 4. Regarding the
commenters' assertion that the proposed disclosure and consent
requirements were unnecessary for institutional customers, NASD amended
the proposed rule change to allow members the option of obtaining
consent from institutional customers orally, on an order-by-order
basis. However, NASD does not believe a one-time disclosure

would be appropriate under such circumstances, thus, NASD proposes that
members that choose to obtain oral consent on an order-by-order basis
must also explain the terms and conditions for handling the order to
the institutional customer before each transaction, and provide the
institutional customer with ``a meaningful opportunity to object to the
execution of the transaction on a net basis.'' Additionally, members
must document the customer's understanding of the terms and conditions
of the order and the customer's consent on an order-by-order basis.
    Regarding the comments relating to net transactions with non-
institutional customers, NASD states it ``recognizes the burdens that
result from having to obtain written consent on an order-by-order
basis'' but believes the written disclosure and consent requirements
are important to ensure that information regarding members' methods of
compensation on transactions is provided to non-institutional
customers, and that such customers agree to the methods of
compensation. NASD does not believe that the market information
available to customers will assist customers to determine whether a
member is trading net or to understand the ramifications for the
customer of trading net. Ultimately, NASD believes that benefits of
requiring member disclosure and consent outweigh the related burdens to
members.
    NASD amended the proposal to allow a member, absent instructions to
the contrary, to look to the institutional or non-institutional status
of the fiduciary, rather than the underlying account, when deciding
which method of disclosure and consent is allowable under the proposal.
    NASD clarified that the scope of the proposal does not include
orders received from member firms and other registered broker-dealers.
As such, the proposal would not apply to orders received from members
and other registered broker-dealers, nor would a receiving broker-
dealer handling an order marked ``net'' routed to it from an
originating broker-dealer have consent and disclosure obligations to
the customer of the originating broker-dealer.\22\ In both scenarios,
the originating broker-dealer would be responsible for adhering to the
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with regard to the possible inconsistency between net
trading and NASD Rule 4632(d)(3)(A), NASD explained that the trade
reporting requirements for net trades ``are not germane to this
proposed rule change'' and that no changes to those requirements are
needed.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, the
comment letters, and the NASD's response to the comments, and finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities association.\24\ Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that
NASD's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change should promote investor
protection by codifying the requirement that members provide disclosure
and obtain customer consent when trading on a net basis. The consent
provided by non-institutional investors must evidence the customer's
understanding of the terms and conditions of the order. The Commission
also believes that the benefit to investors of requiring certain
disclosures and obtaining customer consent when trading on a net basis
outweighs the additional responsibilities placed on broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission understands the commenters' assertion that the
proposed rule change's disclosure and consent requirements were
unnecessary for institutional customers, and is satisfied that NASD's
modification of the proposal to require that members that choose to
obtain oral consent on an order-by-order basis also explain the terms
and conditions for handling the order to the institutional customer
before each transaction and provide the institutional customer with an
opportunity to object to the execution of the transaction on a net
basis in a meaningful way to be a reasonable resolution of the issue.
The Commission also believes it is reasonable and not unduly burdensome
to require members to document a customer's understanding of the terms
and conditions of the order and the customer's consent on an order-by-
order basis.
    The Commission believes that the modifications to the proposed rule
change that NASD made in response to issues raised by the commenters
are reasonable and designed to ease the burdens placed on members
without sacrificing the benefits to investors contemplated by the
proposal. For example, the Commission believes that (i) absent
instructions to the contrary, it is reasonable for a member to look to
the institutional or non-institutional status of the fiduciary, rather
than the underlying account, when deciding which method of disclosure
and consent is consistent with the rule, and (ii) NASD's decision to
allow members the option of obtaining consent from institutional
customers orally on an order-by-order basis, but not allowing a one-
time disclosure under such circumstances, is consistent with investor
protection and the public interest. Additionally, the Commission is
satisfied that the clarifications NASD offered in response to the
comments should provide sufficient guidance to allow members to satisfy
the requirements of the rule. Finally, the Commission agrees with NASD
that the trade reporting requirements for net trades contained in NASD
Rule 4632(d)(3)(A) are not implicated in this proposed rule change.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 4 on an
accelerated basis. Amendment No. 4 modifies the proposal in response to
issues raised by the commenters. Because Amendment No. 4 raises no
novel issues, and provides improvements to the proposed rule change in
direct response to issues raised by the commenters, the Commission
finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 4 before the 30th day
since its publication in the Federal Register.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\25\, that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2004-135), as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3 be, and it hereby is, approved, and Amendment
No. 4 is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10718 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10043-10044]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1955-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Utah; 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 Utah (FEMA-1955-DR), dated February 11, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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 February 11, 2011, 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 Utah resulting from severe winter storms and flooding during the
period of December 20-24, 2010, 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 Utah.
    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 assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures under the Public Assistance program in
the designated areas. 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. Additional forms of assistance may be
added after the State has adopted an approved Standard State
Mitigation Plan.
    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, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran III, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Utah have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Kane and Washington Counties for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B) 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. 2011-4047 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59796-59797]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0711]

Special Local Regulation; St. Petersburg P-1 Grand Prix; Waters
of Tampa Bay

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
the St. Petersburg P-1 Powerboat Grand Prix from September 2 through 3,
2023, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during
this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh
district identifies the regulated area for this event in St.
Petersburg, FL. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.703, Table 1 to Sec.  100.703,
Item 5 will be enforced daily from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., on September 2,
2023 through September 3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician
First Class Mara Brown, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.703, Table 1 to Sec.  100.703, Item No.
5, for the St. Petersburg P-1 Powerboat Grand Prix regulated area from
September 2, 2023 through September 3, 2023. This action is being taken
to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this
event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, Sector St.
Petersburg, Sec.  100.703, Table 1 Sec.  100.703, Item No. 5, Specifies
the location of the regulated area for the St. Petersburg Powerboat
Grand Prix which encompasses portions Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the
St. Petersburg Pier, in St. Peterburg, FL. During enforcement periods,
as reflected in Sec.  100.703, if you are the operator of a vessel in
the regulated area you must comply with direction from the Patrol
Commander or any designated representative.

    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts,
or both.

    Dated: August 22, 2023.
Michael P. Kahle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2023-18698 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P