[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68067-68068]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0705; Airspace Docket No. 12-AWP-4]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Coaldale, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Coaldale VHF Omni-
Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigational Aid (VORTAC),
Coaldale, NV to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
aircraft under control of Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center
(ARTCC). This action enhances the safety and management of IFR
operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, January 10, 2013. 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 24, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace
at Coaldale, NV (77 FR 43181). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. The FAA received one comment from the National
Business Aviation Association (NBAA).
    The NBAA felt the reasons put forth in the NPRM for lowering the
Class E airspace down to 1,200 feet above the surface was vague and did
not name the terminal areas specifically that would benefit from
lowering the Class E airspace. The commenter also recommended that the
FAA lower the Class E airspace in a much larger area pushing the
airspace north to the boundaries of Oakland ARTCC and Seattle ARTCC
airspace, and east to the boundaries of Oakland ARTCC and Salt Lake
City ARTCC airspace.
    The FAA is creating this airspace at the request of the Oakland
ARTCC to aid with the navigation of aircraft within the ARTCC's
airspace area by assisting aircraft arriving and departing numerous
terminal areas. The FAA feels that making the area larger is not needed
at this time and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Further
widening of the airspace would not serve the immediate purpose of
establishing the Class E-6 en route airspace area to assist Oakland
ARTCC.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, 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 airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface, in the vicinity of the Coaldale VORTAC
navigation aid, Coaldale, NV, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control
of the Oakland ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to
terminal areas. 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
controlled airspace at the Coaldale VORTAC, Coaldale, NV.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AWP NV E6 Coaldale, NV [New]

Coaldale VORTAC
    (Lat. 38[deg]00'12'' N., long. 117[deg]46'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 38[deg]55'20'' N., long.
119[deg]22'42'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]57'46'' N., long. 119[deg]14'44''
W.; to lat. 38[deg]41'13'' N., long. 118[deg]53'31'' W.; to lat.
38[deg]44'27'' N., long.

118[deg]48'52'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]37'03'' N., long. 118[deg]40'45''
W.; to lat. 38[deg]23'17'' N., long. 118[deg]20'35'' W.; to lat.
38[deg]16'55'' N., long. 118[deg]13'39'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]02'23''
N., long. 117[deg]56'00'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]45'08'' N., long.
117[deg]41'19'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]45'58'' N., long. 117[deg]39'55''
W.; to lat. 37[deg]29'37'' N., long. 117[deg]25'57'' W.; to lat.
37[deg]15'12'' N., long. 117[deg]13'46'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]12'00''
N., long. 117[deg]20'00'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]12'02'' N., long.
117[deg]38'40'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]19'09'' N., long. 117[deg]58'15''
W.; to lat. 37[deg]28'23'' N., long. 117[deg]54'28'' W.; to lat.
37[deg]55'00'' N., long. 118[deg]10'30'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]04'06''
N., long. 119[deg]15'00'' W.; thence to the point of origin.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 23, 2012.
Vered Lovett,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-27666 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33585-33586]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4176-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Alabama; 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 Alabama (FEMA-4176-DR), dated May 2, 2014,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 2, 2014, 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 Alabama resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line
winds, and flooding beginning on April 28, 2014, and continuing, 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 Alabama.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments.
Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for

a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented
pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

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

    Baldwin, Jefferson, Lee, and Limestone Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    Baldwin, Jefferson, Lee, Limestone, and Mobile Counties for
debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and
B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
Program.
    All counties within the State of Alabama are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-13633 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35131-35135]
[DOCID:fr20jy09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0116]
RIN 2127-AK35

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule delays the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of a February 6, 2007 final rule, from September 1, 2009 to
September 1, 2010. The February 6, 2007, final rule amended the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on door locks and door retention
components to add and update requirements and test procedures and to
harmonize with the world's first global technical regulation for motor
vehicles. NHTSA received four petitions for reconsideration of that
final rule, including two that requested a delay in the effective date
of the sliding door provisions of the rule, and others which raised
concerns about some of the new test requirements and procedures. To
accommodate manufacturers' design and production cycles while allowing
the agency more time to analyze the petitions in regards to other
issues, the agency is delaying the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 until September 1, 2010.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 1, 2009. Any petitions
for reconsideration of today's final rule must be received by NHTSA not
later than September 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all documents received
will be posted without change to the docket, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, contact Ms.
Shashi Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-4909, or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, contact
Ms. Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202)
366-2992, or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Both persons may be reached by mail at the following address:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 18, 2004, the Executive Committee of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) approved the world's first
global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles, a GTR on door
locks and door retention components which addressed inadvertent door
openings in crashes.\1\ With the establishment of a

GTR and having voted in favor of it, the U.S., as a contracting party
to the 1998 Agreement,\2\ initiated rulemaking to adopt the provisions
of the global standard.\3\ On December 15, 2004, NHTSA issued a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to update Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention
components, and provide consistency with the GTR (69 FR 75021; Docket
No. NHTSA-2004-19840-1). The NPRM comment period closed on February 14,
2005 and 11 commenters provided responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations
(WP.29), Global Technical Regulation No. 1 Door Locks and Door
Retention Components, U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1 (Nov. 18, 2004),
available at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/
wp29registry/gtr1.html.
    \2\ The 1998 UNECE Agreement Concerning the Establishment of
Global and Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and
Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/Or Be Used On Wheeled Vehicles (1998
Agreement) was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations
and provides for the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle
regulations. This 1998 Agreement, whose conclusion was spearheaded
by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is administered
by the UNECE's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29). See http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/
wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob.html.
    \3\ While the 1998 Agreement obligates such Contracting Parties
to begin their processes, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether
to adopt the GTR into their domestic law to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the NPRM, on February 6, 2007, NHTSA published a final
rule amending FMVSS No. 206.\4\ Consistent with the GTR and the NPRM,
the final rule added test requirements and test procedures for sliding
doors, added secondary latched position requirements for doors other
than hinged side doors and back doors, provided a new optional test
procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extended the application
of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of less
than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), including 12-15 passenger vans.
The final rule also eliminated an exclusion from the requirements of
the standard for doors equipped with wheelchair platform lifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882; 72 FR 5385 (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the agency decided on an effective
date of September 1, 2009 for the amendments established by the
February 2007 final rule. Optional early compliance was permitted.
NHTSA stated in the February 2007 final rule that the agency believed
this effective date provided manufacturers adequate time to make the
necessary design changes. NHTSA also believed that the majority of
vehicles already comply with the upgrades of the rulemaking, and that
those not currently complying should not need significant changes to
come into compliance. In addition, the agency stated that we did not
believe it was necessary or appropriate to tie the effective date for
the February 2007 final rule with that of a then-pending upgrade of
FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, since that would result in
unnecessary delay in obtaining the benefits from the February 2007
final rule.

II. Overview of Petitions for Reconsideration and Agency Response

    In response to the February 2007 final rule, NHTSA received
petitions for reconsideration from: the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance), the Ford Motor Company (Ford), Advocates for
Highway Safety, and Thomas Built Buses, Inc. The petitions addressed a
wide range of FMVSS No. 206 issues, including technical issues and
requests to change the effective date of the final rule. The Alliance
petitioned to make changes to the requirements and test procedures for
sliding doors and either to phase in the entire final rule with full
implementation in 2012 or to delay the effective date of just the
sliding door test requirements until 2012. Ford petitioned to extend
the effective date of the entire final rule or at a minimum change the
date as it pertained to sliding doors.
    The petitions for reconsideration have asked the agency to
reconsider many technical aspects of that rulemaking relating to
specifics of test procedures, which were for the most part not
significant issues. However, NHTSA's response to the petitions is not
yet complete, and given the approach of the September 1, 2009 effective
date, the agency wishes to respond to the issues of the petitions in
parts, with a response today to the effective date issue. Today's final
rule delays the compliance date of the sliding door provisions of
S4.2.2 of the February 2007 final rule until September 1, 2010, while
retaining the original effective date of September 1, 2009 for all
other provisions of the final rule. Other issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration will be addressed by the agency in a
subsequent document.

III. Discussion

    In the February 2007 final rule, after considering the comments and
other information, the agency decided on an effective date of September
1, 2009 for the new FMVSS No. 206 requirements. NHTSA believed this
effective date provided manufacturers adequate time to make the
necessary design changes. Both the Alliance and Ford petitioned NHTSA
to extend the effective date of the February 2007 final rule until
2012. Several reasons were suggested by the petitioners.
    The first related to the technical basis for the agency's decision.
In the final rule, the agency determined that the effective date of
September 1, 2009 was reasonable based on tests conducted by NHTSA's
Vehicle Research & Test Center (VRTC) and by Transport Canada
indicating that the vehicles tested would meet the requirements under
consideration. In its petition for reconsideration, Ford stated that
the sample evaluation of vehicles tested by VRTC was not all inclusive
and did not reflect the complete status of today's fleet. In its March
23, 2007 petition for reconsideration, and in an April 4, 2007 meeting
with NHTSA to discuss its petition for reconsideration,\5\ Ford
expressed concern with its inability to meet the new requirements for
sliding doors for large vans by the effective date specified in the
February 2007 final rule (September 1, 2009).\6\ Ford presented test
data demonstrating its position that not all large vans are equipped
with two latch systems on their sliding doors and that these vans do
not comply with the sliding door test requirements. Based on the test
data, Ford contends that significant redesign efforts will be needed to
comply with the new sliding door specifications in the February 2007
final rule. In addition, in its petition for reconsideration the
Alliance stated that its member companies have not yet tested or
certified their sliding door-equipped vehicles to the new test
procedure and needed more time to evaluate their vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882-0011 (Apr. 22, 2007).
    \6\ In its petitions for reconsideration, Ford requested
confidential treatment for certain pages labeled ``Confidential'' Or
``Entire Page Confidential.'' The agency granted confidentiality to
these pages through a letter dated April 4, 2007 from the Office of
Chief Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, both the Alliance and Ford believed that NHTSA should align
the February 2007 final rule effective date with that of the new pole
test for FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection,\7\ because the same
area of the vehicle must be modified to meet the requirements for both
FMVSS Nos. 206 and 214. This is a view that the Alliance had expressed
in its comment to the NPRM, to which the agency had responded in the
final rule. In its petition for reconsideration, the

Alliance stated that all current vehicles with a sliding door having a
single latching system design will require major structural
modifications to the B-pillar(s) and door(s) to accommodate a two-latch
design. The petitioner believed that, since both standard upgrades
require major structural modifications on the same areas of the
vehicle, it would be most efficient to coordinate these changes to meet
both requirements simultaneously.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 214 by incorporating a dynamic pole
test into the standard (among other updates), which will require
vehicle manufacturers to assure head and improved chest protection
in side crashes, by installing new technologies such as side curtain
air bags and torso side air bags. See 72 FR 51908 (Sept. 11, 2007);
response to petitions for reconsideration, 73 FR 32473 (June 9,
2008).
    \8\ The Alliance's revised petition for reconsideration (based
on its projections about the then-pending FMVSS No. 214 final rule)
requested a change in the effective date schedule as follows:
September 1, 2011--20%; September 1, 2012--50%; September 1, 2013--
100%. NHTSA published the FMVSS No. 214 final rule and response to
petitions for reconsideration after submission of the petition.
Under these final rules, the phase in schedule for FMVSS No. 214
begins September 1, 2010 and ends for vehicles made in one stage
September 1, 2015. 73 FR 32473, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the petitioners believed that the effective date as is
pertains to sliding doors should be postponed until 2012, to coincide
with the implementation of the door locks and door retention components
GTR in Europe. Ford believed that the February 2007 final rule is
primarily intended to harmonize requirements internationally and does
not add to real world safety benefits, so therefore an implementation
date consistent with GTR implementation timing in Europe is reasonable
and warranted.

Agency Response

    The petitioners are correct that the agency's determination of an
effective date of September 1, 2009 was based on tests of only smaller
vans. Table 1 below, ``Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door
Evaluation Test Results,'' provides a summary of Transport Canada's and
VRTC's tests used to develop the February 2007 final rule. The table
identifies the makes and models of the vehicles tested, the number of
sliding door latches, and whether the vehicle passed the required load
and allowable door separation requirements.

                     Table 1--Transport Canada and VRTC Sliding Door Evaluation Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of     Pass/fail  load and
           Model year                     Make                Model             latches       4'' gap proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Transport Canada Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................  Dodge..............  Caravan............               1  Fail.
1998............................  Dodge..............  Caravan............               1  Fail.
2000............................  Mazda..............  MPV................               1  Fail.
1999............................  Honda..............  Odyssey............               1  Fail.
1997............................  Chevy..............  Venture............               2  Pass.
2000............................  Pontiac............  Transport..........               2  Pass.
1998............................  Ford...............  Windstar...........               2  Pass.
1999............................  Ford...............  Windstar...........               2  Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                VRTC Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................  Dodge..............  Caravan............               1  Fail.
2001............................  Dodge..............  Caravan............               1  Fail.
1992............................  Chevy..............  Lumina.............               1  Fail.
2002............................  Honda..............  Odyssey............               1  Fail.
2001............................  Ford...............  Windstar...........               2  Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows that evaluation testing was only conducted on mini-
vans. Table 1 also indicates that all the vehicles that passed the 100
millimeter (mm) limit of door separation specified in the sliding door
test requirement were equipped with two latch systems while all those
that failed were equipped with one latch system.\9\ As shown in Table
1, large vans were excluded from evaluation testing. The agency did not
test large vans sliding doors because it believed at the time that
these doors were equipped with two latching systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The table indicates that generally, all early model minivans
are equipped with one sliding door latching systems while newer
minivans have two latching systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has reconsidered the Transport Canada and VRTC test data
in light of the information from Ford. We continue to believe that the
majority of the current fleet already complies with the sliding door
test. Most sliding doors in the fleet have two latching systems, with a
latching system on the front and the rear edges of the door, and are
capable of meeting the sliding door requirements in the final rule
without design modifications. However, we recognize that vehicles with
one latching system are generally unable to meet the force load
requirement or the allowable door separation limitation and that
information from Ford indicates that many large van sliding doors
currently have only one latch. Thus, many large vehicles will need to
have an additional latch installed on the sliding doors. While this
design change to vehicles with one latching system is not significant,
an additional year to meet S4.2.2 of the 2007 final rule will better
enable manufacturers to assess their vehicles and accommodate needed
changes within design and production cycles. Accordingly, we are
delaying the compliance date of the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2
of the February 2007 final rule until September 1, 2010, to provide
manufacturers another year of lead time.
    However, we are retaining the original effective date of September
1, 2009 for all other provisions of the final rule. We do not agree
that significant design changes will be needed to comply with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Ford stated that vehicles not meeting
the upgraded standard experienced deformation and damage to the sheet
metal of the B and C-Pillar, the door sliding track, and the latch. We
also observed similar sheet metal and track damage as that reported by
Ford in the minivans with a single latching system that failed the
sliding door test requirements. However, vehicles with sliding doors
equipped with two latch systems were able to meet the sliding door test
requirements in the standard without extensive damage to the sheet
metal, door track or latch. Thus, NHTSA

believes that it is likely that if Ford's large van sliding door were
equipped with two latch systems, the vehicle would pass the
requirements without a significant redesign of the surrounding
structure.
    We reiterate our conclusion in the February 2007 final rule that
aligning the effective date of the FMVSS No. 206 final rule with that
of the FMVSS No. 214 upgrade is unwarranted.\10\ The door lock and door
retention components requirements do not affect the same vehicle
structural components that may require modification to meet the FMVSS
No. 214 upgrade requirements. The tests for the two rulemakings are
very different, and the test for this rule is not a dynamic crash test.
Since vehicles with two latch systems were able to meet the standard's
requirements without extensive damage to the sheet metal, door track,
or other components, we believe that the sheet metal damage cited by
Ford is not determinative for complying with the FMVSS No. 206
requirements. As such, we do not believe it would be appropriate to tie
the effective date for this rule with that of the side impact upgrade,
since that would result in unnecessary delay in obtaining the benefits
from this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 72 FR at 5396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the arguments to align the effective date to the
implementation of the GTR in Europe, NHTSA is not obligated by the 1998
Agreement to harmonize effective dates of GTRs with other countries.
The GTR process allows each country to develop its own implementation
schedule of the rule. Therefore, we reject Ford's assertion that ``an
effective date consistent with GTR implementation timing in Europe is
reasonable and warranted.'' Extending the compliance date of the
sliding door provisions until September 1, 2010 gives sufficient time
for necessary modifications to comply with the new test requirements
while ensuring that the benefits from the rule will be achieved in the
U.S. as quickly as possible. Therefore, we are retaining the final rule
effective date of September 1, 2009, with the exception of extending
the effective date of the sliding door provisions of S4.2.2 to
September 1, 2010 to accommodate manufacturers' design and production
cycles.

IV. Effective Date of This Document

    Because September 1, 2009 (the original effective date for the
February 2007 final rule) is fast approaching, NHTSA finds for good
cause that this action delaying the compliance date should take effect
immediately. Today's final rule makes no substantive changes to FMVSS
No. 206, but delays the compliance date of the sliding door provisions
of S4.2.2 of the February 6, 2007 final rule until September 1, 2010
while the agency responds to the petitions for reconsideration of the
rule.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). Although the February
6, 2007 final rule was significant due to public interest in the
issues, this postponement of the compliance date of the sliding door
provisions of S4.2.2 of the February 6, 2007 final rule until September
1, 2010 is not significant. This final rule does not impose any
requirements on any manufacturer. The minimal impacts of today's
amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemptive provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so
consultation would be unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption. State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers,
including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When
such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda
Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has considered today's final rule
and does not currently foresee any potential State requirements that
might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any
implied preemption.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health
or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
    This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other

administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects
motor vehicle manufacturers, multistage manufacturers and alterers, but
the entities that qualify as small businesses will not be significantly
affected by this rulemaking. This final rule does not establish new
requirements, but instead only adjusts an effective date of one of the
provisions of the February 2007 final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it does not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The final rule does
not contain any new information collection requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing today's
final rule because this final rule only adjusts an effective date of
one of the provisions of the standard. There are no voluntary standards
that address the subject of this rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
    The final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the
definition of a Federal mandate because it would not result in costs of
$100 million (adjusted annually for inflation with a base year of 1995
or 116 million in 2003 dollars) or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus,
this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/
privacy.html.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR 571.206 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.206 is amended by adding S<IP_ADDRESS>, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.206  Standard 206; Door locks and door retention components.

* * * * *

S<IP_ADDRESS> This S<IP_ADDRESS> applies to vehicle manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010.
* * * * *

    Issued on: July 14, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-17078 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 87 (Monday, May 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21312-21314]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09184]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0454; FRL-9961-25-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; New Regulations for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision pertains to a provision establishing new volatile organic
compound (VOC) content limits and standards for architectural and
industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings available for sale and use in
Maryland. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0454. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 2001, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), in collaboration
with the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states, developed several
emission reduction measures, including a VOC model rule for AIM
coatings (known as the Phase I AIM model rule), which addressed VOC
reductions in the OTR. In 2004, consistent with the OTC Phase I AIM
model rule, Maryland adopted COMAR 26.11.33--Architectural Coatings,
which established VOC content limits, recordkeeping and labeling
requirements, and standard practices for use and application of
coatings used in architectural and industrial maintenance.
    The Phase I AIM model rule was replaced with an amended OTC model
rule in 2011 (known as the Phase II AIM model rule). The Phase II AIM
model rule was developed for states that needed additional VOC emission
reductions in order to meet the ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Consistent with the Phase II AIM model rule,
Maryland developed and adopted COMAR 26.11.39--Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings, which is an updated version of COMAR
26.11.33.
    On June 27, 2016, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted to EPA a SIP revision (16-09) containing new AIM regulations
.01 through .08 under COMAR 26.11.39--Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings to be included in the Maryland SIP and requesting
removal of COMAR 26.11.33 from the SIP, as COMAR 26.11.39 supercedes
COMAR 26.11.33. On November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85455), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Maryland's
new AIM regulations.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The new AIM regulations apply to any person who manufactures,
blends, thins, supplies, sells, offers for sale, repackages for sale,
or applies architectural and industrial maintenance coatings in
Maryland. Maryland's new AIM regulations establish more stringent VOC
content limits (Table 1) and standards for AIM coating categories than
in COMAR 26.11.33, as well as establish container labeling
requirements, reporting requirements, and compliance procedures. The
requirements of COMAR 26.11.39 supersede those of COMAR 26.11.33. Other
specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPR and technical support document for this rulemaking
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPR.

Table 1--VOC Content Limits Under COMAR 26.11.39 for Various AIM Coating
                               Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Maryland's new
                                                            VOC content
    Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings     limits (grams/
                        category                           liter) under
                                                          COMAR 26.11.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flat coatings...........................................              50
Non-flat coatings.......................................             100
Non-flat--high gloss coatings...........................             150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Specialty Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum roof coatings..................................             450
Basement specialty coatings.............................             400
Bituminous roof coatings................................             270
Bituminous roof primers.................................             350
Bond breakers...........................................             350
Calcimine recoater......................................             475
Concrete curing compounds...............................             350
Concrete/masonry sealers................................             100
Concrete surface retarders..............................             780
Conjugated oil varnish..................................             450
Conversion varnish......................................             725
Driveway sealers........................................              50
Dry fog coatings........................................             150
Faux finishing coatings.................................             350
Fire-resistive coatings.................................             350
Floor coatings..........................................             100
Form-release coatings...................................             250
Graphic arts coatings (Sign paints).....................             500
High-temperature coatings...............................             420
Impacted immersion coatings.............................             780
Industrial maintenance coatings.........................             250
Low-solids coatings.....................................             120
Magnesite cement coatings...............................             450
Mastic texture coatings.................................             100
Metallic pigmented coatings.............................             500
Multi-color coatings....................................             250
Nuclear coatings........................................             450
Pre-treatment wash primers..............................             420
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters......................             100
Reactive penetrating sealers............................             350
Reactive penetrating carbonate stone sealers............             500
Recycled coatings.......................................             250
Roof coatings...........................................             250
Rust preventative coatings..............................             250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Shellacs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear...................................................             730
Opaque..................................................             550
Specialty primers, sealers, and undercoaters............             100
Stains..................................................             250
Stone consolidant.......................................             450
Swimming pool coatings..................................             340
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastic................             550
Traffic marking coatings................................             100
Tub and tile refinish coatings..........................             420
Waterproofing membranes.................................             250
Wood coatings...........................................             275
Wood preservatives......................................             350
Zinc-rich primers.......................................             340
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's June 27, 2016 SIP submittal with new
regulations for AIM coatings under COMAR 26.11.39, and adding these
regulations to the Maryland SIP. With this approval, EPA is also
removing COMAR 26.11.33 from the Maryland SIP. COMAR 26.11.39
establishes VOC content limits and requirements for certain AIM coating
categories which are more stringent than limits previously found in
COMAR 26.11.33. Therefore, EPA believes these new regulations in the
SIP strengthen the Maryland SIP and should lead to additional VOC
reductions, which will reduce ozone formation and assist Maryland with
attaining and maintaining the ozone NAAQS.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Maryland's
new regulations for AIM coatings in COMAR 26.11.39. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Maryland's new regulations for AIM
coatings under COMAR 26.11.39 may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: March 5, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Removing the heading ``26.11.33 Architectural Coatings'' and the
entries ``<IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>.''
0
b. Adding the heading ``26.11.39 Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings'' and the entries ``<IP_ADDRESS>-
<IP_ADDRESS>'' in numerical order.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA--Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Code of Maryland administrative                                   State                                             Additional explanation/ citation at
   regulations (COMAR) citation          Title/subject        effective date            EPA approval date                      40 CFR 52.1100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            26.11.39 Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Applicability and                 4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                    Exemptions.                                citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Test Methods-                     4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                    Incorporation by                           citation].
                                    Reference.
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Definitions..............         4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                                                               citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  General Requirements and          4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                    Standards.                                 citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  VOC Content Limits.......         4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                                                               citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Container Labeling                4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                    Requirements.                              citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Reporting Requirements...         4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                                                               citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Compliance Procedures....         4/25/16  5/8/17, [insert Federal Register
                                                                               citation].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-09184 Filed 5-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37806-37808]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13273]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 24, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0053; FRL-10010-82]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (May 2020)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and/or part 180 for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is
taking public comment on the request before responding to the
petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time.
EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this
document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section
408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

A. Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 0E8828. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0235). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon
establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP 0E8828, to remove the existing tolerance in 40 CFR
180.511 for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-
dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-
thiadiazin-4-one in or on the raw agricultural commodities in or on
bean, snap, succulent at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). Contact: RD.

B. New Tolerance Exemptions For Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. IN-11402. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0293). The Innovative Reform Group,
on behalf of The Clorox Company, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA, 94566-
0803, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of various fragrance
components (CAS Reg. No. multiple) when used as inert ingredients in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food
processing equipment and utensils at end-use concentrations not to
exceed 5 parts per million (ppm). Contact: RD.
    2. IN-11016. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0294). Verto Solutions, 1101 17th
Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a)
for residues of various fragrance components (CAS Reg. No. multiple)
when used as inert ingredients in antimicrobial pesticide formulations
for use on food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy
processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils at
end-use concentrations not to exceed 100 ppm. Contact: RD
    3. IN-11373. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0295). The Innovative Reform Group,
on behalf of The Clorox Company, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA, 94566-
0803, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of various fragrance
components (CAS Reg. No. multiple) when used as inert ingredients in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food
processing equipment and utensils at end-use concentrations not to
exceed 100 ppm. Contact: RD.
    4. IN-11018. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0296). Verto Solutions, 1101 17th
Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a)
for residues of various fragrance components (CAS Reg. No. multiple)
when used as inert ingredients in antimicrobial pesticide formulations
for use on food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy
processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils at
end-use concentrations not to exceed 100 ppm. Contact: RD.
    5. IN-11372. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0297). The Innovative Reform Group,
on behalf of The Clorox Company, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA, 94566-
0803, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of various fragrance
components (CAS Reg. No. multiple) when used as inert ingredients in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food
processing equipment and utensils at end-use concentrations not to
exceed 100 ppm. Contact: RD.
    6. IN-11401. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0298). The Innovative Reform Group,
on behalf of The Clorox Company, P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA, 94566-
0803, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of various fragrance
components (CAS Reg. No. multiple) when used as inert ingredients in
antimicrobial pesticide formulations for use on food contact surfaces
in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food
processing equipment and utensils at end-use concentrations not to
exceed 33 ppm. Contact: RD.

C. New Tolerance Exemptions For Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 0F8835. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0286). Plant Health Care Inc., 2626
Glenwood Avenue, Suite 350, Raleigh, NC 27608, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the biochemical pesticide PHC 25279 in or on food crops.
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is
expected that, when used as proposed, PHC 25279 would not result in
residues of toxicological concern based on the lack of toxicity
observed in toxicology studies. Contact: BPPD.

D. New Tolerance Exemptions For PIPS

    1. PP 0G8830. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0234). J.R. Simplot Company, 5369
West Irving Street, Boise ID, 83706, requests to establish a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 174 for
residues of the plant-incorporated protectants (PIP) BLB2 and AMR3 Late
Blight resistance proteins in potato. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because the levels of BLB2 and AMR3 are
below levels of detection and it would be impractical to demonstrate
methods for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide
residues. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP IN-11411. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0237). J.R. Simplot Company, 5369
West Irving Street, Boise ID, 83706, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 174 for residues of
the plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) inert ingredient modified
potato acetolactate synthase (StmALS), in potato. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because: (1) StmALS is
expressed in the plant and it is not feasible to remove residues of
StmALS from transformed potato events, and (2) the safety assessment of
StmALS demonstrates that both hazard and exposure associated with the
protein is low and that the risk to both humans and the environment is
close to zero. Contact: BPPD.

E. New Tolerances For Non-Inerts

    1. PP 7F8646. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053). This posting is amending the
previous NOF published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2018 by
announcing commodities that were left inadvertently left off. BASF
Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27709, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the insecticide, broflanilide, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on amaranth, grain; quinoa, forage; quinoa,
straw; teff, forage; and teff, straw at 0.01 ppm. Tolerances are also
requested for food items (animal origin) for hog, meat; poultry, meat;
eggs; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat
byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; poultry, meat byproducts; sheep,
meat byproducts; hog, fat; and horse, fat at 0.02 ppm. The

independently validated analytical method is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical broflanilide and its metabolites S(PFP-OH)-8007
and DM-8007. An independently validated analytical method has been
submitted for analyzing residues of parent Broflanilide plus
metabolites DM-8007 and DC-DM-8007 in animal matrices by LC-MS/MS. Food
handling matrices samples were analyzed for broflanilide residues using
a combination of the plant and animal methods with minor modifications.
Contact: RD.
    2. PP 9F8759. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0346). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC. P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish an
import tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
mefenoxam metal N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-DL-alaninate
in or on the raw agricultural commodities Tree Nut Group 14-12, at 0.3
ppm. The analytical method used was Syngenta Crop Protection Analytical
Method ``Link K (2016) Metalaxyl--Analytical Method GRM075.01A for the
Determination of Residues of Metalaxyl and Structurally Related
Metabolites as Common Moiety 2,6-Dimethylaniline (CGA72649) in Crops''.
Final sample analysis was performed using LC-MS/MS with EAG method
modifications dated August 14, 2017 to measure and evaluate the
chemical mefenoxam. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 9E8773. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0531). Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc.
c/o Landis International, Inc., 3185 Madison Highway, P.O. Box 5126,
Valdosta, GA 31603, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of the fungicide Penthiopyrad, (RS)-N-[2-(1,3-
dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-pyrazole-4-
carboxamide in or on Persimmon at 3.0 ppm. High Performance Liquid
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer (LC-MS) is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical Penthiopyrad. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 0E8821. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0113). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish tolerances with regional registrations in 40 CFR part
180.633(c) for residues of the herbicide, florasulam, N-(2, 6-
difluorophenyl)-8-fluoro-5-methoxy (1, 2, 4) triazole (1, 5-
c)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on grass, forage at 0.01 ppm and grass, hay at 0.02 ppm.
Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring
only florasulam in or on the commodities. The High-Performance Liquid
Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 0E8828. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0235). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.511 for residues of
buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-
phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one in or on the raw agricultural
commodities: Asparagus bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; bushberry
subgroup 13-07B at 0.08 ppm, catjang bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm;
Chinese longbean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; cowpea, edible podded at
0.02 ppm; french bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; garden bean, edible
podded at 0.02 ppm; green bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; goa bean,
edible podded at 0.02 ppm; guar bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm;
jackbean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; kidney bean, edible podded at 0.02
ppm; lablab bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; navy bean, edible podded
at 0.02 ppm; moth bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; mung bean, edible
podded at 0.02 ppm; rice bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; scarlet
runner bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; snap bean, edible podded at
0.02 ppm; sword bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; urd bean, edible
podded at 0.02 ppm; vegetable soybean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm;
velvet bean, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; wax bean, edible podded; winged
pea, edible podded at 0.02 ppm; and yardlong bean, edible podded at
0.02 ppm.
    In addition to the proposed tolerances, the IR-4 Project requests
that EPA permit the buprofezin label instructions currently stated as
``For greenhouse tomatoes and peppers'', be revised to ``For Fruiting
Vegetables (Crop Group 8-10)'', thus allowing buprofezin applications
to all greenhouse-grown fruiting vegetables.
    The enforcement analytical methods are available in PAM I and PAM
II for the enforcement of buprofezin tolerances, which include gas
chromatography methods with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), and
a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method for confirmation
of buprofezin residues in plant commodities to measure and evaluate
buprofezin. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: June 15, 2020.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-13273 Filed 6-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21615-21616]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8522]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66734; File No. SR-ISE-2012-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Additions to the Schedule of Fees

April 4, 2012.
    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 April 2, 2012, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to add notes to its Schedule of Fees with respect
to two fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add notes to its Schedule of Fees with
respect to the application of two fees currently assessed by ISE. The
first note relates to Non-ISE Market Maker fees, which apply to regular
and complex orders, and how those fees are applied to execution of
complex orders on the Exchange.\3\ Non-ISE Market Maker fees were
adopted by ISE in 2006.\4\ Prior to this fee change, Non-ISE Market
Makers were subject to the fee listed on the Schedule of Fees under
``firm proprietary'' for both regular and complex orders. In order to
attract complex orders to the Exchange, ISE charged an execution fee
only on the largest leg of a complex order. Most of the execution fees
for complex orders on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees currently note
that for complex orders, this fee is ``charged for the leg of the trade
consisting of the most contracts.'' However, in 2006, when ISE carved
out the fee for Non-ISE Market Makers as a separate line item on the
Schedule of Fees, the Exchange inadvertently failed to note that the
Exchange only charges an execution fee on the largest leg of a trade
for complex orders sent to the Exchange. The Exchange continued to
charge Non-ISE Market Makers only for the largest leg of a complex
order. The Exchange now proposes to add the following note under the
Non-ISE Market Maker line item: ``For Complex Orders, fee charged only
for the leg of the trade consisting of the most contracts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Non-ISE Market Maker is a market maker as defined in
Section 3(a)(38) of the Act, registered in the same options class on
another options exchange.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53630 (April 11,
2006), 71 FR 19918 (April 18, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second note relates to a fee for executions in symbols that are
subject to the Exchange's modified maker/taker fees. The Exchange
initially adopted modified maker/taker fees in April 2010 \5\ and has
since amended these fees regularly in response to competitive changes
made by other options exchanges. These fees apply to market
participants that add or remove liquidity from the Exchange in 101
options classes.\6\ When the Exchange adopted modified maker/taker
fees, it did not specify how the maker/taker fees would apply to
executions by Primary Market Makers (PMMs) when they provide away
market price protection for marketable public customer orders when the
ISE market is not at the NBBO in accordance with their obligations
under ISE rules and the Intermarket Linkage Plan.\7\ Since the PMM is
performing its linkage obligations when it executes (i.e., ``trade
reports'') such public customer orders, it is neither a taker nor maker
of liquidity as those terms are used within the framework of the ISE's
maker/taker pricing model. Accordingly, when PMMs are performing this
intermarket price protection function, the Exchange has not charged any
fees or provided any rebates for PMM trade reports since the adoption
of the maker/taker fees. The Exchange now proposes to specify in a note
that: ``Primary Market Makers do not receive a maker rebate nor pay a
taker fee when trade reporting a public customer order in accordance
with their obligation to provide away market price protection pursuant
to ISE Rule 803(c)(2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7,
2010), 75 FR 19449 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25).
    \6\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \7\ The Intermarket Linkage Plan prohibits an exchange from
allowing the automatic execution of public customer orders at a
price that is inferior to the best prices being publically displayed
by another exchange. Under ISE Rule 803(c)(2), it is the
responsibility of the PMM to either execute an order at a price that
matches or betters the NBBO, or obtain such better prices on behalf
of the public customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to clarify its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the proposal will correct an ambiguity
that was created by the adoption of a separate Non-ISE Market Maker fee
that failed to specify the fee's application to complex orders. Non-ISE
Market Makers were only charged for the largest leg of a complex order
prior to that fee change, and continued to be charged only for the
largest leg of a complex order after the fee change. Accordingly, the
Exchange's application of the transaction fee to complex orders
remained consistent, and Non-ISE Market Makers continued to be treated

in a non-discriminatory manner with respect to the execution of complex
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes it is fair and equitable not to charge a
taker fee, nor provide a maker rebate, to PMMs when they trade report a
public customer order in compliance with their linkage obligations. The
PMM neither receives a financial benefit in the form of a rebate from
performing its obligations, nor is it subject to the burden of paying
the taker fee. The Exchange believe this is the most fair way to
approach the PMM trade report function under the maker/taker pricing
model, as categorizing the PMM trade report as a maker or taker would
either provide an inequitable benefit to PMMs or place an inequitable
burden on PMMs. The proposal to codify the application of the maker/
taker pricing model to PMM trade reports will add transparency to the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2012-29 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-ISE-2012-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-29 and should be
submitted on or before May 1, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8522 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P