[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60954-60956]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24016]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70525; File No. SR-NSX-2013-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule

September 26, 2013.
    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 September 23, 2013, National Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NSX[supreg]'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule'') issued pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(a) in order to
change two of the stocks on the list of five select securities (the
``Select Securities'') for which the Exchange pays a rebate of $0.0045
per executed share to Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') \3\ Holders that
direct Double Play Orders \4\ in those securities to the CBOE Stock
Exchange, Inc. (``CBSX''). The Exchange is proposing no other changes
to the Fee Schedule except to amend the list of Select Securities.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc., (``AMD'') and Micron Technology, Inc. (``MU'') from the list of
Select Securities, and replace them with Apple Inc. (``AAPL'') and
Google Inc. (``GOOG'') \5\ AMD and MU will revert to the fee and rebate
programs applicable for all other securities that trade on the
Exchange, which provide for a rebate of $0.0015 for Double Play Orders,
other than those in the Select Securities, routed to and executed on
CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NSX Rule 1.5 defines the term ``ETP'' as an Equity Trading
Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved securities
transactions on the Exchange's Trading Facilities.
    \4\ NSX Rule 11.11(c)(10) defines a ``Double Play Order'' as
market or limit orders for which an ETP Holder instructs the System
to route to designated away Trading Centers which are approved by
the Exchange from time to time without first exposing the order to
the NSX Book. A Double Play Order that is not executed in full after
routing away receives a new time stamp upon return to the Exchange
and is ranked and maintained in the NSX Book in accordance with Rule
11.14(a).
    \5\ The Exchange previously filed for immediate effectiveness
amendments to its Fee Schedule, effective July 1, 2013, that: (i)
Established the $0.0045 per share rebate for executions of Double
Play Orders in the Select Securities on CBSX; (ii) clarified that
the unexecuted portion of a Double Play Order that is returned to
NSX after its initial route to CBSX and subsequently executed on the
NSX or routed away in accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii) is
subject to the standard Fee Schedule; and (iii) clarified that the
$0.0030 per share routing fee applies only to orders routed by the
Exchange in accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii). In addition to
AMD and MU, the Select Securities identified were Bank of America
Corp. (``BAC''), Nokia Corporation (``NOK''), and Sirius XM Radio
Inc. (``SIRI''). See Exchange Act Release No. 34-69941; 78 FR 41966;
SR-NSX-2013-14 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.nsx.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Commission's public reference room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 amend Section IIIA of its Fee Schedule to
change two of the five stocks on the list of Select Securities that
will receive a rebate of $0.0045 per executed share to ETP Holders that
direct Double Play Orders to CBSX. A Double Play Order is a market or
limit order for which the ETP Holder instructs the NSX System \6\ to
bypass the NSX Book \7\ and route the order to a designated away
Trading Center(s) \8\ that has been approved by

the Exchange.\9\ The NSX System will provide any unexecuted portion of
a Double Play Order with a new timestamp upon return to the Exchange,
and the order will be processed in the manner described in NSX Rule
11.14 (Priority of Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under NSX Rule 1.5, the term ``System'' is defined as ``the
electronic securities communications and trading facility. , .
through which orders of Users are consolidated for ranking and
execution.''
    \7\ Under NSX Rule 1.5, the term ``NSX Book'' is defined as
``the System's electronic file of orders.''
    \8\ NSX Rule 2.11(a) defines a Trading Center as other
securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated
trading systems, electronic communications networks or other brokers
or dealers.
    \9\ See NSX Rule 11.11(c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the revised Fee Schedule, symbols AAPL and GOOG will replace
symbols AMD and MU. CBSX has determined to change these two Select
Securities in its fee schedule.\10\ The Exchange intends to pass
through the rebates to ETP Holders that direct Double Play Orders in
the Select Symbols to the CBSX and, accordingly, is making this
conforming change to the Fee Schedule in order to pass through the
rebates received from CBSX to ETP Holders that direct Double Play
Orders in the Select Securities to CBSX. The Exchange notes that its
proposed amendment to the Fee Schedule to substitute two symbols on the
list of Select Securities does not affect the amount of the rebate
applicable to Double Play orders in such securities routed to CBSX, for
the select securities and for all other securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Exchange Act Release No. 34-70382; 78 FR 57247; SR-CBOE-
2013-86 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The removal of AMD and MU from the list of Select Securities and
the addition of AAPL and GOOG is proposed as a means to increase the
liquidity in AAPL and GOOG. AMD and MU had been included in the Select
Symbols in an attempt to attract greater liquidity in both symbols, but
increased liquidity has not occurred. By returning those symbols to the
fee and rebate structure applicable to all other securities, and
substituting AAPL and GOOG, the Exchange hopes to attract greater
liquidity provision in AAPL and GOOG. AAPL and GOOG are higher-priced
stocks that typically have larger spreads than other products, and it
is anticipated that the enhanced rebate structure may result in more
liquidity in these symbols.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the list of
Select Symbols to which the increased rebate for Double Play Orders
routed away and executed on the CBSX will apply is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act in general, and Sections 6(b)(4)
\11\ and 6(b)(5) \12\ of the Act in particular. The Exchange submits
that increased rebate is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in
that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues and
fees among ETP Holders, issuers and persons using the Exchange's
facilities. All ETP Holders are eligible to submit (or not submit)
Double Play Orders in the Select Securities at their discretion.
Providing ETP Holders with the enhanced rebate for directing Double
Play Orders in the Select Securities to the CBSX is a reasonable method
to increase order flow handled by the Exchange, and the periodic
substitution of securities on the list of Select Securities is
responsive to whether the enhanced rebate structure is attaining the
anticipated results in these symbols, and whether changes to the list
of Select Securities should be made to provide new opportunities for
ETP Holders and their customers to benefit from increased liquidity in
these symbols that the enhanced rebates were designed to encourage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its proposed amendment to the Fee Schedule
to substitute two symbols on the list of Select Securities does not
affect the amount of the rebate applicable to Double Play orders in
such securities routed to CBSX. The Exchange's proposal mirrors that of
the CBSX, which is proposing to amend its fee schedule to effect the
same change to the list of Select Securities, to be effective as of
September 3, 2013. The Exchange intends to merely pass through rebates
to ETP Holders that direct Double Play Orders in the Select Symbols to
the CBSX and, accordingly, is making this conforming change to the Fee
Schedule in order to pass through the rebates received from CBSX to ETP
Holders that direct Double Play Orders in the Select Securities to
CBSX.
    As noted by the Exchange in its initial filing to implement the
enhanced rebate schedule in the Select Securities, \13\ the liquidity
profiles of the Select Securities are different from those for other
symbols and the rebate structure for the Select Securities is intended
to incentivize the trading in the Select Securities and thus provide a
greater pool of liquidity. The substitution of two symbols meeting this
profile for two other symbols that did not attain the increased
liquidity levels is a reasonable means of attracting greater liquidity
in these symbols to the Exchange. The rebates for the Select Securities
apply equally to all market participants. The Exchange submits that the
rebate structure for the Select Securities constitutes an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among ETP Holders,
issuers and other persons using the facilities of the Exchange, and the
substitution of two symbols on the current list of five is consistent
with the [sic] of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at footnote 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the fee and rebate structure for the
Select Securities is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that
it does not permit unfair discrimination between ETP Holders, issuers
and customers, and substituting two symbols on the list of Select
Securities does not affect the non-discriminatory nature of the
enhanced rebate program. ETP Holders and their customers will continue
to choose to send Double Play Orders in the Select Securities to NSX to
be eligible for the enhanced rebate schedule and they will also
continue to have a choice of other execution venues with different
pricing mechanisms as well. By offering the enhanced rebate structure
in the Select Securities, the Exchange is providing alternatives to ETP
Holders and their customers, while also striving to increase the
liquidity in the Select Securities on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange submits that
the enhanced rebate in the Select Securities promotes competition by
potentially attracting additional liquidity to the Exchange and
providing access to liquidity on the CBSX. The increased rebate is
designed to encourage ETP Holders to use Double Play Orders and
increase the number of shares handled by the Exchange and CBSX. To this
extent, the Exchange submits that the proposed substitution of AAPL and
GOOG for AMD and MU on the list of Select Securities is responsive to
the competitive forces that impact liquidity and order flow and are
intended to enhance competition for order flow in these securities.
    Moreover, as the Exchange has previously noted, it does not believe
that passing through the rebate received from the CBSX to ETP Holders
imposes a burden on competition for any other Exchange-approved Trading
Center to which ETP Holders may direct orders since other Trading
Centers may offer other competitive functions or features such as low
cost executions, increased levels of liquidity or faster executions.
The ETP Holder may choose which offering is most attractive and the
increased rebate is one factor which an ETP Holder may consider.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \14\ and subparagraph
(f)(2) of Rule 19b-4.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NSX-2013-18 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-NSX-2013-18. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-NSX-2013-18 and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24016 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2916-2919]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0552]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; West Palm Beach Triathlon Championship,
Intracoastal Waterway, West Palm Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to issue a special local regulation
on the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway, in West Palm Beach,
Florida, during the West Palm Beach Triathlon Championship, on
Saturday, June 1, 2013. Approximately 1,500 participants are
anticipated to participate in the triathlon. The special local
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of the triathlon
participants, participant vessels, and the general public during the
swim portion of the event. Persons and vessels, except those
participating

in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 1, 2012. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Mike H. Wu, Sector Miami
Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2012-0552 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2012-0552 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before January 20, 2012 using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to ensure the safety of life and property on navigable waters
of the United States during the West Palm Beach Triathlon Championship.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On June 1, 2013, Game One Sports Marketing Group is hosting the
West Palm Beach Triathlon Championship. The races will be held on the
waters of the Intracoastal Waterway, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Approximately 1,500 participants are anticipated to participate in the
triathlons. No spectator vessels are anticipated to be present during
the races.
    The special local regulation encompasses certain navigable waters
of the Intracoastal Waterway in West Palm Beach, Florida. The special
local regulation will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on
June 1, 2013. All persons and vessels, except those participating in
the races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring
in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
    Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port
Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative
via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated
area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the
special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners,

and on-scene designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be
enforced for a maximum of two hours; (2) non-participant persons and
vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
regulated areas during the respective enforcement period if authorized
by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; (3)
non-participant persons and vessels not authorized to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas may operate in
the surrounding areas during the respective enforcement period; and (4)
the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local
regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that
portion of the Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the special
local regulation from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on June 1, 2013. For
the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a marine
event. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35T07-0552 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0552  Special Local Regulation; West Palm Beach
Triathlon Championship, Intracoastal Waterway, West Palm Beach, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is established as
a special local regulation. All waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in
West Palm Beach, Florida between the Flagler Memorial Bridge to the
Royal Palm Way Bridge.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative. Persons and vessels may request
authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas
is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 6:30 a.m.
until 8:30 a.m. on June 1, 2013.

    Dated: December 26, 2012.
J.B. Pruett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2013-00515 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


1Section 182( b)( 3) specifies that EPA would approve any request from a State to reclassify to a higher classification. Technical Support Document for Greensboro, North Carolina September 2004 1.0 Summary.

The State of North Carolina presented a petition to EPA, Region 4, requesting downward reclassification of the Greensboro/ Winston Salem/ High Point ( Triad) Ozone Nonattainment Area from Moderate to Marginal for the 8 hour standard. The petition was presented to EPA July 14, 2004. The petition is based on the area's Moderate design value of 0.093 parts per million ( ppm) being within 5 percent of the maximum Marginal design value of 0.091 ppm as allowed by the Clean Air Act.

2.0 Introduction.

This section describes the statutory provisions and EPA guidance regarding reclassification of ozone nonattainment areas. Sections 181( a)( 4) and 182( b)( 3) of the Clean Air Act provide that areas may be reclassified under certain circumstances. This technical support document addresses the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) and a specific request for reclassifications received by the State of Indiana. The EPA has not received any requests for reclassification under section 182( b)( 3) for the 8 hour ozone standard. 1 Under section 181( a)( 4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified " if an area classified under paragraph ( 1) ( Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based." In the April 30, 2004 notice, we indicated that an area with a moderate design value of 96 ppb ( or less) would be eligible to request a bump down because five percent less than 96 ppb is 91 ppb, a marginal design value.

The EPA previously described criteria to implement the section 181( a)( 4) provisions in a final rule designating and classifying areas published on November 6, 1991 ( 56 FR 56698). As stated in that notice, the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) set out general criteria and grant the Administrator broad discretion in making or determining not to make, a reclassification. As part of the 1991 action, EPA developed more specific criteria to evaluate whether it is appropriate to reclassify a particular area. The EPA also described these criteria in the April 30, 2004 final rule. The general and specific criteria are as follows:

General: The EPA may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.

Request by State: The EPA does not intend to exercise its authority to bump down areas on EPA's own initiative. Rather, EPA intends to rely on the State to submit a request for a bump down. A Tribe may also submit such a request and, in the case of a multi state nonattainment area, all affected States must submit the reclassification request.

Discontinuity: A five percent reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas. In particular, in light of the areawide nature of ozone formation, a reclassification should not create a " donut hole" where an area of one classification is surrounded by areas of higher classification.

Attainment: Evidence should be available that the proposed area would be able to attain by the earlier date specified by the lower classification in the case of a bump down.

Emissions reductions: Evidence should be available that the area would be very likely to achieve the appropriate total percent emission reduction necessary in order to attain in the shorter time period for a bump down.

Trends: Near and long term trends in emissions and air quality should support a reclassification. Historical air quality data should indicate substantial air quality improvement for a bump down. Growth projections and emission trends should support a bump down. In addition, we will consider whether vehicle miles traveled and other indicators of emissions are increasing at higher than normal rates.

Years of data: For the 8 hour ozone standard, the 2001 2003 period is central to determining classification. Data from 2004 may be used to corroborate a bump down request but should not be the sole foundation for the bump down request.

Limitations on Bump Downs An area may only be reclassified to the next lower classification. An area cannot present data from other years as justification to be reclassified to an even lower classification. In addition, section 181( a)( 4) does not permit moving areas from subpart 2 into subpart 1.

In 1991, EPA approved reclassifications when the area met the first requirement ( a request by the State to EPA) and at least some of the other criteria and did not violate any of the criteria ( emissions, reductions, trends, etc.). In our April 30, 2004 final rule on designations and classifications, we stated our intention to use this method and these criteria once again to evaluate reclassification requests under section 181( a)( 4), with minor changes described in that notice. In that notice we also described how we applied these criteria in 1991. For additional information, see section 5, " Areas requesting a 5% downshift per § 181( a)( 4) and EPA's response to those requests," of the Technical Support Document, October 1991, for the 1991 rule. [ Docket A 90 42A.]

EPA is not basing this reclassification determination on consideration of whether the nonattainment area being reclassified does or does not cause any pollution transport. The EPA is presently addressing ozone pollution transport issues throughout the eastern part of the United States under other Clean Air Act provisions. Specifically, EPA has proposed a determination that emissions from certain states contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment for ozone under CAA section 110( a)( 2)( D) through the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The CAIR proposal, published in a Federal Register notice dated January 30, 2004, would require upwind States to eliminate emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind States. 69 Fed. Reg. 454566. The EPA previously issued the NOx SIP call ( 63 FR 57356) to address interstate ozone transport. In the event of any intrastate transport issue, states have the obligation to develop attainment SIPs for each area that show timely attainment, and can address any intrastate transport issues in that context.

The April 30, 2004 notice invited States to submit the reclassification requests within 30 days of the effective date of the designations and classifications. The effective date was June 15 which means that reclassification requests were to be submitted by July 15, 2004. This relatively short time frame is necessary because section 181( a)( 4) only authorizes the Administrator to make such reclassifications within 90 days after the initial classification, September 15, 2004.

3.0 Background.

The Triad area was designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard on April 15, 2004, and classified " Moderate" based on a design value of 0.093 ppm. The modeling was developed according to EPA's draft 8 hour ozone modeling guidance and it was used to support a deferral of the effective date for the nonattainment area. The recently revised Triad Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA), which has a population of over 1.3 million, includes Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Alamance, Caswell, Randolph, and Rockingham counties. In 2000, Davie County had a population of just over 34,000 ( which includes the Cooleemee monitor), while Forsyth County reported a population of 306,000 ( which includes the Hattie monitor) and Guilford County had a population of over 421,000. The remaining counties had the following populations: Davidson, 147,000; Randolph, over 130,000; Stokes, over 44,000; Yadkin, over 36,000; Rockingham, over 91,000 and Caswell, under 24,000.

There are nine monitors in the Triad area. Two monitors have a design value of 0.093 ppm which is above the moderate threshold but within 5 percent of the marginal category: the Cooleemee monitor located in Davie County and the Hattie monitor in Forsyth County. One of the monitors is attaining the 8 hour ozone standard and the remaining six monitors range from 0.085 to 0.089 ppm, all within the marginal classification range.

4.0 Reclassification Request by States.

The State's request and the rationale is as follows:

1. Request by State: The State of North Carolina presents this petition.

2. Discontinuity: The Triad area is downwind of the Charlotte moderate nonattainment area. Although this area has a later attainment date, attainment by 2007 for the Triad area should not be affected. Local photochemical grid modeling for the Triad area includes emissions and emissions reductions from the Charlotte nonattainment area. Attainment is still indicated.

3. Attainment: Local photochemical grid modeling, developed under the Early Action Compact ( EAC) program, demonstrates attainment of the Triad area which includes the Greensboro MSA.

4. Emissions Reductions: Appropriate and achievable emissions reductions are detailed in the petition and the EAC progress report submittals.

5. Trends: Since 1998, monitored ozone levels at the Greensboro MSA monitors have steadily decreased and support reclassification.

6. Years of Data: 2001 2003 air quality data was used to designate the nonattainment area.

5.0 EPA Review of the Reclassification Request.

5.1 Request by State.

The state of North Carolina submitted the petition by the date required; July 15, 2004.

5.2 Discontinuity.

The modeling screening tests documented in the petition demonstrate that no discontinuity exists with surrounding areas. Surrounding areas include the Charlotte area which has the same classification, and the Raleigh area which has a lower classification. The Charlotte attainment date of 2010 is later than the Triad attainment date of 2007. There are three areas near the Triad nonattainment area that are violating the 8 hour NAAQS based on 2001 2003 data; Raleigh/ Durham/ Chapel Hill ( Triangle) area, Hickory/ Morganton/ Lenoir ( Unifour), and Charlotte/ Gastonia/ Rock Hill area ( Charlotte). The EAC air quality modeling indicates that two of these areas will attain the standard by 2007 ( Triangle and Unifour). Local controls are being implemented to reduce the impact of regional transport from the remaining nonattainment area ( Charlotte).

5.3 Attainment.

Local photochemical grid modeling, developed under the EAC program, demonstrates attainment for the Triad area which includes the Greensboro MSA. The modeling predicts a 2007 future design value of 0.084 ppm for the Triad area which indicates attainment. Eight of the nine monitors are projected to be at 0.08 ppm or below. In addition, the EAC modeling for 2010 also indicates maintenance of the 8 hr ozone NAAQS. The modeling was developed according to EPA's draft 8 hour ozone modeling guidance and was used to support a deferral of the effective date for the nonattainment area. Updated local modeling data included in the June 2004 EAC progress report were referenced to support the attainment criteria of the reclassification petition. Future design values from the June report for the nine Triad monitors are presented in the following table.

Monitoring Site AIRS ID 2007 Design Values ( ppm) Cooleemee 37 059 0002 0.084 Hattie Avenue 37 067 0022 0.080 Union Cross 37 067 1008 0.079 Bethany 37 157 0099 0.076 Cherry Grove 37 033 0001 0.076 McLeansvill e 37 081 0011 0.076 Shiloh Church 37 067 0028 0.076 Sophia 37 151 0004 0.072 Pollirosa 37 067 0027 0.069 Regional scale modeling developed by EPA to support the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) predicts a 2010 future area wide 8 hour ozone design value for the Triad area of 0.078 ppm. This indicates the area will continue to comply with the 8 hour NAAQS beyond 2007. The CAIR modeling data are from the proposed rulemaking's 2010 base case.

5.4 Emissions Reductions Attainment is expected because of the combination of measures to be implemented and potential measures listed in the petition along with the commitment of the area to implement additional measures as needed to achieve attainment. Implementation of controls both within the nonattainment area and in the surrounding areas of the State provide assurances of attainment for the area. The oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) and volatile organic compounds ( VOC) controls that are being implemented within the Greensboro nonattainment area and the surrounding areas to achieve improved air quality and attainment are presented as follows.

Greensboro ( Triad) EAC Controls NOx SIP Call Reductions ( regulation)  Reducing NOx emissions from Power Plants by 68% ( full implementation in 2006  but most controls already implemented)  Reducing NOx emissions from Internal combustion ( IC) Engines, implementation in 2004 modeled: yes Inspection and Maintenance Program  Onboard Diagnostics ( OBD) ( regulation)  Required in all counties of the Triad, phasing in between July 2002 and 2005. All counties except Stokes and Surry will implement prior to 2005 modeled: yes Full Maintenance Plan through 2017 Greensboro city  conversion to biodesiel for all on and off road vehicles ( voluntary) modeled: no Guildford County  School bus diesel retrofits ( voluntary) modeled: no Open Burning Ban  Code orange/ Red Days ( regulation) modeled: yes RJ Reynolds  Tobaccoville eliminate use of 4 coalfired boilers ( 2004 2007) ( regulation) modeled: yes Piedmont Authority for Regional Tranportation ( PART) has funds to build 20 park and ride lots ( voluntary) modeled: no Linked Regional Transit Planning ( PART) to EAC Goals ( voluntary) modeled: no No idling policy for all Guilford county school buses ( voluntary) modeled: no On line data Base and Reporting System for vehicle replacement ( Forsyth County/ Greensboro) ( voluntary) modeled: no All of the above local controls will have begun implementation by the beginning of the 2006 ozone season.

5.5 Trends.

The area's design value is 0.093 ppm, 2 ppb above the Marginal classification design value based on 2001 2003 data. The area has not had any exceedances at the Cooleemee or Hattie monitor in 2004 through August 10. The 4th highest monitor value is 0.070 ppm at the Cooleemee monitor and 0.069 ppm at the Hattie monitor. If these values remain the 4th highest for 2004, the design value will decline to 0.085 for both monitors, well within the Marginal range and only 1 ppb above the attainment level. With the monitor values already established for 2002 and 2003, the Cooleemee and Hattie monitors could have a 4th high value as high as 0.090 and 0.092 ppm respectively and the design value would still decline to 0.092 ppm, which is within five percent of the upper limit for the Marginal classification. Design value trends for the monitors in the Triad area have generally declined since 1997. Therefore, the trends in air quality 8 hour ozone design values indicate the Marginal classification is appropriate. ( See Figure 1)

Emissions data demonstrate a decrease in NOx emissions of about382 tons per day between 2000 and 2007. Beyond 2007, further NOx emissions reductions are expected due to the Federal, State and local control measures. VOC emissions will decrease by 20 tons per day between 2000 and 2007 with additional future reductions expected. An aggressive control program is being implemented throughout the State that affects stationary and mobile sources.

5.6 Years of data.

The period used for classification is 2001 2003.

5.7 Additional Information.

North Carolina is committed to conserve and protect its natural resources and maintaining a high quality environment. With the rules and legislation that North Carolina has already enacted, it is expected the Triad area will attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS without having to implement the control measures prescribed by the moderate classification.

5.8 Conclusions The data and analysis presented in the petition support the request for downward revision to the 8 hour ozone classification for the Triad area. The downward trends in air quality monitor and emissions data are strong indicators of future attainment. The emission reductions available along with the commitment by the state and local agencies to add necessary controls further serve to justify downward classification. Under the EAC, although not required, the December 31, 2004 EAC SIP submittal will include a " section 175A type" maintenance plan.

5.9 EPA Action The EPA is approving the reclassification request for Greensboro because the request meets all of the criteria EPA established.

6.0 Additional Information Additional information regarding the bump down request for this area is contained in the docket for this action. This information includes the State request, supporting documents, and other necessary material. 1994 2004 Greesnboro design values 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1 94 96 95 97 96 98 97 99 98 00 99 01 00 02 01 03 02 04 design value years ozone (

ppm) Cooleemee 37 059 0002 Hattie Ave. 37 067 0022 Union Cross 37 067 1008 Shiloh Church 37 067 0028 Cherry Grove 37 033 0001 McLeansville 37 081 0011 Bethany 37 157 0099 Sophia 37 151 0004 Pollirosa 37 067 0027


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/07/2008 01:21 PM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Norm Possiel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat Dolwick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Requested Maps of AirQuality Modeling from Ozone Final RIA - 2020 with .079 and w126 after modeled controls

Janet, this is very helpful, thank you.  I believe the objective of the

reviewer who asked about this was to get a better sense for the

magnitude of improvement required from current conditions, and this

would indeed address that question.

Best regards, welcome to 2008 --

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:18 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Johansson, Robert<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Requested Maps of AirQuality Modeling from Ozone Final RIA

- 2020 with .079 and w126 after modeled controls

Heidi,

    The only information we have about air quality in the absence of

promulgated regs and air quality improvements would be current year

ambient monitored data.  We developed soem current year maps for public

communications during the proposal effort.  I've attached the maps to

this email in a powerpoint file.  We don't have anything beyond current

year information.  If you would like more details based on current year

information, I can put you in touch with the group that is responsible

for that.  If you have any trouble with the file, or any other questions

I might be able to help with, let me know.

Thanks,

Janet

(See attached file: Maps2003_2005data.ppt)

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             01/02/2008 02:23                                        cc

             PM                       "Johansson, Robert"

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                       , Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Norm Possiel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Pat Dolwick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      RE: Requested Maps of AirQuality

                                      Modeling from Ozone Final RIA -

                                      2020 with .079 and w126 after

                                      modeled controls

Hi Janet,

Has EPA prepared and could you pls share with me a map showing counties

out of attainment at various standards in the absence of promulgated

regs and air qual improvements?  That is, something resembling a look at

which States will be out of attainment at each alternative standard

prior to implementation of promulgated rules?

Forgive me if this is something already provided (perhaps at proposal)

but that I do not have handy

Thank  you!

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:34 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Johansson, Robert<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Requested Maps of AirQuality Modeling from Ozone Final RIA -

2020 with .079 and w126 after modeled controls

Heidi,

     When we briefed you and the interagency group on the air quality

modeling results of our modeled control strategy, we recieved a request

to add .070 to our results maps.  We were also asked to provide the w126

results from the modeled control strategy.  I've attached these maps

below for you to distribute to the group.  Please let me know if you

need any further information or have any trouble with the files.

Thanks,

Janet

(See attached file: W126slide.ppt)(See attached file: 2020cc_084 & 070

for 5 NAAQS.ppt) _______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>