[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49909-49911]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0288]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Banks Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the navigable waters adjacent to Harbor Island and Wrightsville
Beach, NC. This proposed safety zone would restrict vessel movement on
portions of Masonboro Inlet, Banks Channel, and Motts Channel during
the PPD Ironman NC event on October 22, 2016. This action is necessary
for the safety of life on the surrounding navigable waters during this
event. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0288 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Ryan Phillips, Coast
Guard Sector North Carolina, Coast Guard; 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
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 22, 2016, PPD Ironman NC notified the Coast Guard that
as part of the PPD Ironman NC event approximately 2500 swimmers will
compete along a course starting at Masonboro Inlet from 7 a.m. to 11
a.m. on October 22, 2016. The course begins at approximate location
latitude 34[deg]11'13'' N. longitude 077[deg]48'53'' W., continuing
north in Banks Channel crossing at the approximate location latitude
34[deg]12'14'' N. longitude 077[deg]48'04'' W. into Motts channel
heading west stopping at Sea Path Marina where swimmers will exit the
water approximately at latitude 34[deg]12'44'' N. longitude
077[deg]48'25'' W. in Wrightsville Beach, NC.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of swimmers
and rescue crews from hazards associated with vessel traffic and other
hazards. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m.
on October 22, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters
starting at the approximate position latitude 34[deg]11'13'' N.,
longitude 077[deg]48'53'' W., heading north to approximate position
latitude 34[deg]12'14'' N., longitude 077[deg]48'04'' W., traveling
west and ending at approximate position latitude 34[deg]12'44'' N.,
longitude 077[deg]48'25'' W. The duration of the zone is intended to
ensure the safety of swimmers during the scheduled 7 a.m. to 11 a.m.
swimming event. Except for vessels authorized by the COTP North
Carolina or her designated representative, no person or vessel except
safety crew designated by PPD Ironman NC may enter or remain in the
safety zone. All persons and vessels granted permission to enter the
zone must comply with the instructions of the COTP North Carolina or
her designed representative.
    Notification of the temporary safety zone will be provided to the
public via marine information broadcasts. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the

importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs,
of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not
been designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
rulemaking elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves: a safety
zone lasting 4 hours that would prohibit entry into the proposed safety
zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add, under the undesignated center heading Fifth Coast Guard
District, temporary Sec.  165.T05-0437 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0437  Safety Zone, Wrightsville Beach, NC.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters at
Masonboro Inlet starting at approximate location latitude
34[deg]11'13'' N. longitude 077[deg]48'53'' W., heading north in Banks
Channel at approximate location latitude 34[deg]12'14'' N. longitude
077[deg]48'04'' W., heading west into Motts channel and stopping at Sea
Path Marina approximately at latitude 34[deg]12'44'' N. longitude
077[deg]48'25'' W. in Wrightsville Beach, NC.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 apply to the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Persons or vessels requesting entry into or passage through any
portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the
Captain of the Port, or a designated representative. The Captain of the
Port or his designated representative can be contacted at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by radio on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13
and 16.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 11 a.m. on October 22, 2016, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain
of the Port.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
P.J. Hill,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2016-17927 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 216)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68744-68747]
[DOCID:fr09no10-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1155]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1155, to
Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk
Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                             elevation            Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Gilmer County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cartecay River......................  Approximately 0.24 mile        +1291        +1290  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Gilmer County.
                                       confluence with
                                       Owltown Creek.
                                      Approximately 1.12              None        +1519
                                       miles upstream of Holt
                                       Bridge Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Gilmer County
Maps are available for inspection at the Gilmer County Courthouse, 1 Broad Street, Ellijay, GA 30540.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                La Porte County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Michigan.......................  Entire shoreline within         None         +585  City of Michiana
                                       community.                                         Shores, Unincorporated
                                                                                Areas of La Porte
                                                                                County.
Lake Michigan.......................  Entire shoreline within         +587         +585  Town of Long Beach.
                                       community.
Lake Michigan.......................  Entire shoreline within         +584         +585  City of Michigan City.
                                       community.
Otter Creek.........................  At the confluence with          None         +592  Town of Pottawattamie
                                       Trail Creek.                                       Park.
                                      Approximately 1,000             None         +598
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Karwick Road.
Trail Creek.........................  At the confluence with          +584         +585  City of Michigan City.
                                       Lake Michigan.
                                      Approximately 1,100             +584         +585
                                       feet upstream of E
                                       Street.
Trail Creek.........................  Approximately 1,100             None         +591  Town of Pottawattamie
                                       feet upstream of                                   Park.
                                       Liberty Trail Road.
                                      At the confluence with          None         +592
                                       Otter Creek.
White Ditch.........................  Approximately 160 feet          None         +604  City of Michiana
                                       downstream of Michiana                             Shores, City of
                                       Drive.                                             Michigan City,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of La Porte County.
                                      Approximately 1,840             None         +607
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Oakdale Drive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Michiana Shores
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 601 El Portal South Drive, Michiana Shores, IN 46360.

City of Michigan City
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 100 East Michigan Boulevard, Michigan City, IN 46360.

Town of Long Beach
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 2400 Oriole Trail, Long Beach, IN 46360.

Town of Pottawattamie Park
Maps are available for inspection at the La Porte County Government Complex, 809 State Street, Suite 503A, La
 Porte, IN 46350.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of La Porte County
Maps are available for inspection at the La Porte County Government Complex, 809 State Street, Suite 503A, La
 Porte, IN 46350.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Butte County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belle Fourche River.................  Just upstream of U.S.          +3012        +3008  City of Belle Fourche,
                                       Route 212.                                         Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Butte County.
                                      Approximately 0.7 mile         +3017        +3019
                                       upstream of Fairground
                                       Road.
Hay Creek...........................  Approximately 500 feet         +3041        +3042  City of Belle Fourche,
                                       downstream of U.S.                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       Route 85.                                          of Butte County.

                                      Approximately 0.9 mile          None        +3089
                                       downstream of Black
                                       Angus Lane.
Redwater River......................  Approximately 1,200            +3018        +3016  City of Belle Fourche,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       U.S. Route 212                                     of Butte County.
                                       Business.
                                      Approximately 700 feet         +3024        +3023
                                       upstream of U.S. Route
                                       212 Business.
Willow Creek........................  Approximately 0.5 mile          None        +3022  City of Belle Fourche,
                                       downstream of Snoma                                Unincorporated Areas
                                       Street.                                            of Butte County.
                                      Approximately 1,650             None        +3183
                                       feet downstream of
                                       West Wood Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Belle Fourche
Maps are available for inspection at 511 6th Avenue, Belle Fourche, SD 57717.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Butte County
Maps are available for inspection at 830 6th Avenue, Belle Fourche, SD 57717.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Custer County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle Creek........................  Approximately 1.6 miles         None        +3262  Town of Hermosa,
                                       downstream of Chicago                              Unincorporated Areas
                                       and Northwest Railroad.                            of Custer County.
                                      Approximately 600 feet         +3390        +3388
                                       upstream of Paradise
                                       Road.
Ferguson Split Flow--Battle Creek...  Approximately 0.5 mile          None        +3260  Town of Hermosa,
                                       downstream of                                      Unincorporated Areas
                                       Fairgrounds Place.                                 of Custer County.
                                      Approximately 130 feet         +3290        +3292
                                       upstream of Donna
                                       Street.
Grace Coolidge Creek................  Approximately 180 feet         +3345        +3341  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of the                                  Custer County.
                                       divergence from Battle
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 3.1 miles         None        +3473
                                       upstream of State
                                       Highway 36.
Railroad Spill Flow--Battle Creek...  Just upstream of the            None        +3290  Town of Hermosa,
                                       confluence with Battle                             Unincorporated Areas
                                       Creek.                                             of Custer County.
                                      Just downstream of the          None        +3294
                                       divergence from Battle
                                       Creek.
South Bank Split Flow--Battle Creek.  Approximately 1,200             None        +3310  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       feet upstream of the                               Custer County.
                                       confluence with Battle
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 870 feet          None        +3325
                                       upstream of Yellow Oak
                                       Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

Town of Hermosa
Maps are available for inspection at 420 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, SD 57730.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Custer County
Maps are available for inspection at 420 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, SD 57730.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Forest County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metonga Lake........................  Entire Shoreline within         None        +1599  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       community.                                         Forest County.
Peshtigo Lake.......................  Entire Shoreline within         None        +1591  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       community.                                         Forest County.
Roberts Lake........................  Entire Shoreline within         None        +1594  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       community.                                         Forest County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Forest County
Maps are available for inspection at 200 East Madison Avenue, Crandon, WI 54520.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               La Crosse County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black River.........................  Approximately 0.5 mile          None         +694  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of the                                  La Crosse County.
                                       confluence with Davis
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 3.36              None         +706
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Hardies Creek.
Ebner Coulee Main Channel...........  Approximately 1,584             None         +659  City of La Crosse,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Unincorporated Areas
                                       29th Street.                                       of La Crosse County.
                                      Approximately 1,584             None         +697
                                       feet upstream of 29th
                                       Street.
Ebner Coulee Southeast Bank.........  Approximately 52.8 feet         None         +665  City of La Crosse.
                                       upstream of 29th
                                       Street.
                                      Approximately 528 feet          None         +673
                                       upstream of 29th
                                       Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of La Crosse
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 400 La Crosse Street, La Crosse, WI 54601.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of La Crosse County
Maps are available for inspection at 400 4th Street North, La Crosse, WI 54601.

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

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-28225 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42132-42135]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16818]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69948; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Amend Rule 6.53(u), Relating to Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders

July 9, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 28, 2013, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rule 6.53(u) to
allow Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'') Orders with more than one
option leg to be entered in $0.01 increments. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013.\3\
CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on April 18, 2013.\4\ CBOE
filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal on May 29, 2013.\5\ On June 5,
2013, the Commission published notice of and solicited comment on the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and
extended the time period for Commission action on the proposal to July
15, 2013.\6\ The Commission received no comments regarding the
proposal, as amended. This order approves the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69360 (April 10,
2013), 78 FR 22591.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, CBOE added an additional paragraph at
the end of the purpose section stating that: (1) A QCC Order with
multiple legs is a form of a complex order and should be able to be
entered in $0.01 increments, as non-QCC complex orders can currently
be entered in $0.01 increments; and (2) such orders still cannot
trade unless they are at or between the NBBO and the opportunity to
trade QCC Orders with multiple legs in $0.01 increments provides an
opportunity for price improvement at this smaller increment level.
The paragraph added in Amendment No. 1 was deleted and replaced by
language added in Amendment No. 2. See note 5 infra.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, CBOE replaced the paragraph added by
Amendment No. 1 with two paragraphs at the end of the purpose
section stating that: (1) Were it not for language in CBOE Rule
6.53(u) that limits the entry of QCC Orders to the standard
increments applicable to simple orders in the options class of each
leg, QCC Orders with multiple legs would be allowed to be traded in
$0.01 increments under CBOE Rule 6.42; (2) the nature of the pricing
of a complex order, whether a QCC Order or otherwise, is such that
the pricing is based on the relative price of one option versus
another and thus the standard increment of trading of a complex
order's individual options legs is less relevant to the pricing of
the complex order; (3) the proposed amendment to permit QCC Orders
with more than one option leg to be entered in the increments
specified for complex orders under CBOE Rule 6.42 (i.e., $0.01
increments) would put the trading of QCC Orders with multiple legs
on the same footing as the trading of other types of complex orders;
(4) pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.53(u)(ii), each options leg of a complex
QCC Order cannot trade unless each leg provides price improvement
over a public customer order resting in the electronic book and is
at or between the NBBO, and to date, CBOE has never had to reject a
submitted complex QCC Order because it would have violated either of
these principles; and (5) permitting the trading of QCC Orders with
multiple legs in $0.01 increments would provide an opportunity for
price improvement at this smaller increment level.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69675 (May 30,
2013), 78 FR 33868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, CBOE Rule 6.53(u) states that QCC Orders may only be
entered in the standard increments applicable to simple orders in the
options class under CBOE Rule 6.42.\7\ CBOE Rule 6.42 provides trading
increments of $0.01, $0.05, or $0.10 for individual option series, and
orders to buy or sell a single option series must be entered in the
trading increment applicable to the series. CBOE Rule 6.42(4) allows
bids and offers on complex orders to be expressed in any increment,
regardless of the minimum increment otherwise applicable to the
individual legs of the complex order. CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule
6.53(u) to permit QCC orders with more than one option leg to be
entered in the increments specified for complex orders under CBOE Rule
6.42, i.e., $0.01 increments.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A QCC Order is an order to buy (or sell) at least 1,000
standard option contracts or 10,000 mini-option contracts that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade coupled
with a contra-side order to sell (or buy) an equal number of
contracts. A ``qualified contingent trade,'' or ``QCT,'' is a
transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as
agent or principal, where: (1) At least one component is an NMS
stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act; (2)
all components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (3) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (4) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (5) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (6) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade. See CBOE Rule 6.53(u)(i). The
six requirements are substantively identical to the six elements of
a QCT under the Commission's QCT exemption. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829 (September 7,
2006) (``Original QCT Exemption'') and 57620 (April 4, 2008), 73 FR
19271 (April 9, 2008) (``CBOE QCT Exemption''). The current QCT
exemption (i.e., as modified by the CBOE QCT Exemption) is referred
to herein as the ``NMS QCT Exemption.''
    \8\ QCC Orders with one option leg would continue to trade in
the standard increment applicable to simple orders in the option
class. See CBOE Rule 6.53(u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE believes that, because a QCC Order with multiple option legs
is a form of complex order, these QCC Orders also should be permitted
to be entered in $0.01 increments, a change the Exchange states would
place QCC Orders with multiple options legs on the same footing as
other types of complex orders.\9\ CBOE states that the pricing of a
complex order, whether or not it is a QCC Order, is based on the
relative price of one option leg to another (as opposed to the outright
price of a single option), and therefore that the standard increment of
trading of the individual legs of a complex order is less relevant to
the pricing of the complex order.\10\ In addition, CBOE notes that,
under CBOE Rule 6.53(u)(ii), each option leg of a complex QCC Order
must: (1) Provide price improvement over a public customer order
resting in the electronic book; and (2) be at or between the NBBO.\11\
CBOE also states that it has never had to reject a complex QCC Order
because it would have violated either of these principles.\12\ Finally,
CBOE believes that allowing QCC Orders with multiple options legs to be
entered in $0.01 increments will provide an opportunity for price
improvement at a smaller increment level.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 2.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with
Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) \15\ and
6(b)(8),\16\ which require, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and that the rules of an exchange do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In addition, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act,\17\ in which Congress found that it is in the
public

interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure, among other things,
the economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, the Commission approved CBOE's proposal to establish rules
providing for the trading of QCC Orders on CBOE,\18\ which followed the
Commission's approval of a proposal by the International Stock
Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') to trade QCC Orders.\19\ In the ISE Order, the
Commission noted that the parties to a contingent trade are focused on
the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each of the
component instruments (i.e., the net price of the entire contingent
trade), rather than the absolute price of any single component.\20\
Under the requirements of the NMS QCT Exemption, the spread or ratio
between the relevant instruments must be determined at the time the
order is placed, and this spread or ratio stands regardless of the
market prices of the individual orders at their time of execution.\21\
As the Commission noted in the Original QCT Exemption, ``the difficulty
of maintaining a hedge, and the risk of falling out of hedge, could
dissuade participants from engaging in contingent trades, or at least
raise the cost of such trades.'' \22\ Thus, the Commission found that,
if each stock leg of a qualified contingent trade were required to meet
the trade-though provisions of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, such trades
could become too risk and costly to be employed successfully and noted
that the elimination or reduction of this trading strategy potentially
could remove liquidity from the market.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64653 (June 13,
2011), 76 FR 35491 (June 17, 2011) (order approving CBOE-2011-041)
(``CBOE QCC Approval Order'').
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (February 24,
2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (order approving ISE-2010-73)
(``ISE Order'').
    \20\ See ISE Order at 11540.
    \21\ See id. See also supra note 7.
    \22\ See Original QCT Exemption at 52831.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE's QCC Orders allow a Trading Permit Holder to cross the
options leg(s) of a qualified contingent trade in a Regulation NMS
stock on CBOE immediately, without exposure, provided that the
requirements of CBOE Rule 6.53(u) are satisfied. In approving CBOE's
proposal, the Commission stated that QCC Orders could facilitate the
execution of qualified contingent trades, which the Commission
previously had found to be beneficial to the market as a whole by
contributing to the efficient functioning of the securities markets and
the price discovery process.\24\ The Commission noted that QCC Orders
would provide assurance to parties to stock-option qualified contingent
trades that their hedge would be maintained by allowing the options
component of the qualified contingent trade to be executed as a clean
cross.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492, citing Original QCT
Exemption, supra note 7.
    \25\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBOE QCC Approval Order stated further that, although the
Commission believed that order exposure is generally beneficial to the
options markets in that it provides an incentive to options market
makers to provide liquidity and therefore plays an important role in
ensuring competition and price discovery in the options markets, the
Commission also has recognized that contingent trades can be ``useful
trading tools for investors and other market participants, particularly
those who trade the securities of issuers involved in mergers,
different classes of shares of the same issuers, convertible
securities, and equity derivatives such as options [italics
added]'',\26\ and that ``[t]hose who engage in contingent trades can
benefit the market as a whole by studying the relationships between
prices of such securities and executing contingent trades when they
believe such relationships are out of line with what they believe to be
fair value.'' \27\ Thus, the Commission believed that transactions that
meet the specified requirements of the NMS QCT Exemption could be of
benefit to the market as a whole, contributing to the efficient
functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery
process.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492, citing Original QCT
Exemption at 52830-31.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492, citing CBOE QCT
Exemption at 19273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CBOE QCC Approval Order, the Commission stated that the
benefits provided by the exposure requirement and by qualified
contingent trades, such as QCC Orders, required the Commission to weigh
the relative merits of both for the options markets.\29\ The Commission
found that CBOE's rule, by requiring a QCC Order to be: (1) Part of a
qualified contingent trade under Regulation NMS; (2) for at least 1,000
contracts; (3) executed at a price at or between the NBBO; and (4)
cancelled if there is a public customer order on the electronic book,
struck an appropriate balance for the options markets in that it was
narrowly drawn and established a limited exception to the general
principle of exposure and retained the general principle of customer
priority in the options markets.\30\ The Commission noted, further,
that the requirement that a QCC Order be part of a qualified contingent
trade that satisfies each of the six underlying requirements of the NMS
QCT Exemption, and the requirement that a QCC Order be for a minimum
size of 1,000 contracts, further limited the use of QCC Orders by
ensuring that only transactions of significant size would be able to
avail themselves of the order type.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492-93. The CBOE QCC
Approval Order also noted CBOE's representation that, to effect
proprietary orders (including QCC Orders) electronically from on the
floor of the Exchange, members must qualify for an exemption from
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), which concerns
proprietary trading on an exchange by an exchange member. Among
other things and as discussed in greater detail in the CBOE QCC
Approval Order, CBOE recognized that Trading Permit Holders
effecting QCC Orders and relying on the ``G'' exemption for yielding
priority to non-members under Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act and
Rule 11a1-1(T) thereunder would be required to yield priority to any
interest, not just public customer orders, in the electronic book at
the same price to ensure that non-member interest is protected. See
CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the analysis in the CBOE QCC Approval
Order applies equally to the current proposal. By allowing QCC Orders
with more than one option leg to trade in $0.01 increments, rather than
in the standard increment applicable to single leg orders in the
options class, the proposal could facilitate the execution of QCC
Orders with multiple option legs by providing additional price points
at which these orders would be able to be executed, which, in turn,
could facilitate the execution of qualified contingent trades. As
discussed above, the Commission previously has found that transactions
that meet the specified requirements of the NMS QCT Exemption could
benefit the market as a whole by contributing to the efficient
functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery process.
Further, as discussed above, QCC Orders provide assurance to the
parties to a stock-option qualified contingent trade that their hedge
will be maintained by allowing the options component of the order to be
executed as a clean cross. By allowing QCC Orders with multiple option
legs to be executed in $0.01 increments, the proposal could further
facilitate the execution of the option component of a stock-option
qualified contingent trade.
    The Commission notes that CBOE Rule 6.53(u) will continue to
require that QCC Orders, including those with

multiple option legs, be: (1) Part of a qualified contingent trade
under Regulation NMS; (2) for at least 1,000 standard option contracts;
\32\ (3) executed at a price at or between the NBBO; and (4) cancelled
if there is a public customer order at the same price resting on the
electronic book. Thus, the Commission believes that the proposal
continues to strike an appropriate balance for the options market in
that it is narrowly drawn and in that it establishes a limited
exception to the general principle of exposure and retains the general
principle of customer priority in the options markets.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For mini-option contracts, the minimum size is 10,000
contracts. See CBOE Rule 6.53(u).
    \33\ See CBOE QCC Approval Order at 35492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \34\ and 6(b)(8) \35\ of
the Act. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C) of the Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\37\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2013-041), as modified
by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16818 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47102-47103]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16495]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0453; FRL-9427-02-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AL04

Implementing Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory
Beginning With Reporting Years 2021 and 2022; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a correction to a final rule that published in
the Federal Register on Monday, July 18, 2022. The document updated the
list of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Specifically, the action updated the
regulations to identify five per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
that must be reported pursuant to the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA) enacted on December 20, 2019.
This document corrects inadvertent errors in the preamble and the
amendatory instructions that appeared in the regulatory text portion of
the final rule.

DATES: This correction is effective on August 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0453, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Daniel R. Ruedy, Data Gathering
and Analysis Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act Hotline; telephone numbers: toll free at
(800) 424-9346 (select menu option 3) or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC Area and International; or go to https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2022-15268, appearing on page 42651 in the Federal
Register of Monday, July 18, 2022 (87 FR 42651; FRL-9427-01-OCSPP), the
following corrections are made:
    1. On page 42653, in the first column of the table, in the fifth
entry, the

chemical name ``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers
with 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, gamma-omega-perfluoro-C10-6-alkyl
acrylate and stearyl methacrylate (203743-03-7)'' is corrected to read
``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-
hydroxyethyl methacrylate, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C10-16-alkyl
acrylate and stearyl methacrylate (203743-03-7)''.

Sec.  372.65  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 42655, in Sec.  372.65(d), in Table 4 to Paragraph (d):
0
a. In the first column, the chemical name corresponding to CAS No.
29420-49-3 is corrected to read ``Potassium perfluorobutane
sulfonate''; and
0
b. in the first column, the chemical name corresponding to CAS No.
203743-03-7 is corrected to read ``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-,
hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate,
.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C10-16-alkyl acrylate and stearyl
methacrylate.''

0
3. On page 42655, in Sec.  372.65(e), in Table 5 to Paragraph (e):
0
a. In the second entry, ``Potassium perfluorobutane'' is corrected to
read ``Potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate''; and
0
b. In the fifth entry, ``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester,
polymers with 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-
C10-6-alkyl acrylate and stearyl ethacrylate'' is corrected to read
``2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-
hydroxyethyl methacrylate, .gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C10-16-alkyl
acrylate and stearyl methacrylate''.

    Dated: July 27, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-16495 Filed 8-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43600-43601]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15854]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9948-70-OA]

Meetings of the Local Government Advisory Committee and the Small
Communities Advisory Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS) will meet
in Washington, DC, on Thursday, July 28, 2016, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.
(EDT). The Subcommittee will discuss drinking water; rural strategy;
and other issues and recommendations to the Administrator regarding
environmental issues affecting small communities. The Local Government
Advisory Committee (LGAC) will meet Washington, DC, on Wednesday, July
27, 2016, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (EDT); Thursday, July 28, 2016, 9:30
p.m.-5:30 p.m.; and Friday, July 29, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (EDT).
The focus of the Committee meeting will be on issues pertaining to
protecting America's waters; hydraulic fracturing; drinking water; Plan
EJ 2020; cleaning up our communities; air, climate and energy; and
climate change resiliency and sustainability.
    These are open meetings, and all interested persons are invited to
participate. The SCAS will hear comments from the public between 9:00
a.m. and 9:10 a.m. on Thursday, July 28, 2016, and the LGAC will hear
comments from the public between 2:30 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday,
July 27, 2016. Individuals or organizations wishing to address the
Committee will be allowed a maximum of five minutes to present their
point of view. Also, written comments should be submitted
electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please contact the Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) at the number listed below to schedule a time on
the agenda. To address the subcommittee, please contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Time will be allotted on a first-come first-
serve basis, and the total period for comments may be extended if the
number of requests for appearances requires it.

ADDRESSES: The Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee meetings will be
held at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, East Building,
Conference Room 1153, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
The Local Government Advisory Committee meetings will be held at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Room 1153, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Meeting summaries will be
available after the meeting online at www.epa.gov/ocir/scas_lgac/lgac_index.htm and can be obtained by written request to the DFO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Local Government Advisory Committee
(LGAC) contact Frances Eargle, Designated Federal Officer, at (202)
564-3115 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the Small Communities
Advisory Subcommittee (SCAS), contact Demond Matthews, Designated
Federal Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Information on services for those with disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Frances Eargle at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,
please request it 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 21, 2016.
Frances Eargle,
Designated Federal Officer, Local Government Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2016-15854 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8327]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-58-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

February 17, 2010.
    Take notice that on February 3, 2010, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion), 701 East Cary Street 701 East Cary Street Richmond, VA
23219, filed in Docket No. CP10-58-000, a prior notice request under
its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-537-000 pursuant to
sections 157.205(b), 157.208(c) and 157.213 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to
convert one well located in the Greenlick Storage Complex in Potter
County, Pennsylvania. Dominion proposes to convert RW-400 into an
injection/withdrawal well located in the Greenlick Storage Complex.
Dominion states that the certificated physical parameters, including
total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries,
and certificated capacity (including injection and withdrawal capacity)
of the Greenlick Storage Complex will remain unchanged with the
conversion of this well from observation to injection/withdrawal, all
as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this Prior Notice should be directed to
Amanda K. Prestage, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone
no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER> and E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the 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. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file 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
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3617 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69489-69491]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28545]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63270; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-141]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Add New Rule 7014 To Enable NASDAQ Members To Qualify for a Monthly Fee
Credit

November 8, 2010.
    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 October 26, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ proposes to add new Rule 7014 (Investor Support Program) to
enable NASDAQ members to qualify for a monthly fee credit.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at NASDAQ's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below. NASDAQ
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is adding new Rule 7014 to establish an Investor Support
Program (``ISP''), which would enable NASDAQ members to earn a monthly
fee credit for providing additional liquidity to NASDAQ and increasing
the NASDAQ-traded volume of what are generally considered to be retail
and institutional investor orders in exchange-traded securities.\3\ The
goal of the ISP is to incentivize members to provide such targeted
liquidity to the Nasdaq Market Center.\4\ Maintaining and increasing
the proportion of orders in exchange-listed securities executed on a
registered exchange (rather than relying on any of the available off-
exchange execution methods) \5\ would help raise investors' confidence
in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors
by deepening NASDAQ's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The liquidity would, as discussed below, emanate from
members that have a low order to execution ratio.
    \4\ The Commission has recently expressed its concern that a
significant percentage of the orders of individual investors are
executed at over the counter (``OTC'') markets, that is, at off-
exchange markets; and that a significant percentage of the orders of
institutional investors are executed in dark pools. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (Concept Release on Equity Market Structure,
``Concept Release''). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our
Equity Market Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York,
Sept. 7, 2010) (``Schapiro Speech,'' available on the Commission Web
site) (comments of Commission Chairman on what she viewed as a
troubling trend of reduced participation in the equity markets by
individual investors).
    \5\ In the January 2010 Concept Release, the Commission noted
that dark pools and internalizing broker-dealers executed
approximately 25.4% of share volume. See Concept Release, Figure 6.
In her September 2010 speech, Chairman Schapiro referenced that
figure and the fact that it continued to grow: ``today, nearly 30
percent of volume in U.S.-listed equities is executed in venues that
do not display their liquidity or make it generally available to the
public. The percentage executed by these dark, non-public markets is
increasing nearly every month.'' Schapiro Speech.
    \6\ The Commission has recognized the strong policy preference
under the Act in favor of price transparency and displayed markets.
The Commission published the Concept Release to invite public
comment on a wide range of market structure issues, including high
frequency trading and un-displayed, or ``dark,'' liquidity. See
Concept Release. Moreover, Chairman Schapiro identified ``two
concerns that go to the core of our equity market structure: First,
whether the quality of price discovery has declined, and second,
whether these changes in our market structure could undermine the
fair and level playing field essential to investor protection,
capital formation and vibrant capital markets generally.'' Schapiro
Speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first step for a NASDAQ member wishing to participate in the
ISP is to designate one or more of its NASDAQ ports for ISP use.\7\
Orders entered through ISP-designated ports will be used for ISP credit
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Subsequent to initial port designation, a member may add or
remove designated ports for ISP use no later than the first trading
day of the month when the desired change is to become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (b) of Rule 7014 describes how the ISP credit will be
calculated. The ISP credit formula provides for a monthly credit of 3
cents per 100 shares of displayed liquidity provided through an ISP-
designated port to the extent that such liquidity results in an
increase (compared with August 2010) in the overall level of liquidity
that the member provides to NASDAQ measured as a proportion of the
consolidated share volume traded by all market participants across all
trading venues. To this end, a member's ``Baseline Participation
Ratio'' is determined by measuring the number of shares in liquidity-
providing orders entered by the member (through any NASDAQ port) and
executed on NASDAQ and dividing this number by the consolidated (across
all trading venues) share volume of System Securities \8\ traded in
August 2010.\9\ To determine whether a member added liquidity to NASDAQ
in a given month, NASDAQ would perform the same calculation on a
monthly basis for the then-current month and compare the resulting
ratio to the Baseline Participation Ratio. If the member's then-current
month's ratio is higher than the Baseline Participation Ratio, then the
member's ``Added Liquidity'' for that month would be calculated by
multiplying the difference between the two ratios by such month's
consolidated average daily share volume of System Securities traded
across all venues (if the result is a negative number, then Added
Liquidity would be deemed zero).\10\ To determine the amount of the ISP
credit, NASDAQ would multiply $0.0003 by the lower of: (1) The number
of shares of displayed liquidity provided in orders entered by the
member thorough its ISP-designated ports and executed in the Nasdaq
Market Center during the given month, or (2) the amount of Added
Liquidity for the given month. Any ISP credit issued pursuant to Rule
7014 will be in addition to (and will not replace) any other credit or
rebate for which a member may qualify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``System Securities'' is defined as all securities
listed on NASDAQ and all securities subject to the Consolidated Tape
Association Plan and the Consolidated Quotation Plan. Rule 4751(b).
    \9\ See Proposed Rule 7014(d)(2).
    \10\ See Proposed Rule 7014(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (c) contains requirements designed to limit ISP credit
eligibility to targeted orders. This is accomplished by establishing a
maximum ratio (set at 10) of (i) liquidity-providing orders placed from
all of given member's ISP-designated ports to (ii) liquidity-providing
orders placed from such

member's ISP-designated ports and actually executed (at least
partially) in the Nasdaq Market Center. If in a given month this ratio
is 10 or higher for a given member (usually because the member
cancelled a large portion of the orders placed), then the member would
not receive ISP credit for that month. In calculating the ratio, NASDAQ
will exclude pegged, odd-lot and System Hours and Market Hours
Immediate-or-Cancel orders,\11\ and will not double-count in the event
of multiple partial executions of a single order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(4), (g)(3) and (h)(1) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule sets 10 million shares daily on average as the minimum
qualifying volume of shares in executed liquidity-providing orders
entered from a member's ISP-designated ports. This is done to attract
firms with substantive amounts or retail and institutional order flow
that may provide such targeted liquidity to NASDAQ. If, in a given
month, this daily average is lower than 10 million shares, the member
would not qualify for ISP credit. It is expected that both the
execution ratio and the volume minimum would serve to encourage members
to enter orders that are likely to be executed.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The rule
change establishes a program that enables NASDAQ members to earn a
monthly fee credit for increasing the NASDAQ-traded volume of what are
generally retail and institutional investor orders in exchange-traded
securities. The goal of the program is to encourage members to enter
such orders in the Nasdaq Market Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the program distinguishes among orders, such distinctions
``are not designed to permit unfair discrimination'' \14\ but, rather,
are intended to promote submission of liquidity-providing orders to
NASDAQ, which would benefit all NASDAQ members and all investors.
Maintaining and increasing the proportion of retail and institutional
orders in exchange-listed securities executed on a registered national
securities exchange (rather than relying on any of the available off-
exchange execution methods) would help raise investors' confidence in
the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by
deepening NASDAQ's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, setting a minimum monthly volume of eligible ISP
orders as a condition for any fee credit eligibility (and therefore
establishing a minimum threshold amount for any monthly credit) is not
designed to discriminate unfairly, but rather to attract targeted
retail and institutional investor liquidity. Likewise, the program is
consistent with the Act's requirement ``for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges.'' \15\ As explained in the
immediately preceding paragraphs, members who choose to increase the
volume of ISP-eligible liquidity-providing orders that they submit to
NASDAQ would be benefitting all investors, and therefore an additional
credit, as contemplated in the proposed program, is equitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASDAQ notes that the intense competition among several
national securities exchanges and numerous OTC venues effectively
guarantees that fees and credits for the execution of trades in NMS
securities remain equitable and are not unfairly discriminatory.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Concept Release (discusses the various venues
where trades are executed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\17\ 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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-141 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-NASDAQ-2010-141. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, \18\ 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, 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-NASDAQ-2010-141 and should be submitted
on or before December 3, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28545 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P