[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53174-53176]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19052]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78482; File No. SR-IEX-2016-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.270(c) Concerning Clearly Erroneous Executions

August 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 28, 2016, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to correct the chart in Rule 11.270(c), which sets forth the
numerical guidelines for determining if a transaction that is the
subject of a complaint shall be found to be clearly erroneous, to
specify such guidelines for leveraged exchange traded funds (``ETF'')
and exchange traded notes (``ETN''). The Exchange has designated this
rule change as ``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \6\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CRF 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.iextrading.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 statement [sic] 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule filing is to correct the chart in
Rule 11.270(c), which sets forth the numerical guidelines for
determining if a transaction that is the subject of a complaint shall
be found to be clearly erroneous, to specify such guidelines for
leveraged ETFs and ETNs. Due to an oversight, the last line of the
chart, entitled ``Leveraged ETF/ETN'' does not contain all necessary
language with respect to the applicable numerical guidelines.
Accordingly, IEX proposes to amend the chart so that the last line
provides that the numerical guidelines during regular market hours, as
well as the Pre-Market Session and Post-Market Session, shall be the
``Regular Market Hours Numerical Guidelines multiplied by the leverage
multiplier (i.e., 2x).''
    The Exchange notes that Rule 11.270 is substantially identical to
Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rule 11.17,
which in turn is substantially identical to corresponding rules of the
other U.S. securities exchanges that trade equities securities and of
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'').\8\
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to amend Rule
11.270(c) to correct the chart contained therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., BZX Rule 11.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \9\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to make the
correction to the chart in Rule 11.270(c) so that the correct guideline
is used in its rules. Additionally, the correction will create
consistency with the rules of other equities exchanges and eliminate
confusion in its rules. In this regard, FINRA and the equities
exchanges have adopted substantially identical rules relating to
clearly erroneous transactions to provide consistency in the handling
of such transactions. As noted above, the proposed correction will
assure that Rule 11.270 is substantially identical to, and consistent
with, the rules relating to clearly erroneous transactions of FINRA and
the other equities exchanges.\11\ The Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to make the specified correction to alleviate any confusion
among market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See supra note 8 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition because IEX is merely correcting its rule to
correct an inadvertent omission of necessary text.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\ The Exchange notes that its proposal corrects
an inadvertent omission and has asked the Commission to waive the 30-
day operative delay, making this proposal operative upon filing. As
noted above, IEX's proposal adds rule text to IEX Rule 11.270(c) that
IEX inadvertently omitted, which conforms IEX's rule to the
substantially identical BZX rule. As this proposal will correct the
error in IEX's rule, it should alleviate any potential confusion among
market participants. For this reason, the Commission believes that
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and waiver will allow IEX to update
its rule without undue delay. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives
the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6),
respectively. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2016-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2016-06. 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-IEX-2016-06, and should be submitted on or before
September 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19052 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 97-101]
[FR Doc No: E9-31170]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1186; FRL-9099-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan:
Kentucky; Approval Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard for the Paducah Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the maintenance plan addressing
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the Paducah 8-hour ozone attainment
area, which comprises Marshall County and a portion of Livingston
County (hereafter referred to as the ``Paducah Area''). This
maintenance plan was submitted to EPA on May 27, 2008, by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and ensures the continued attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) through
the year 2020. On July 15, 2009, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted
supplemental information with updated emissions tables for this Area to
reflect actual emissions. EPA proposes to find that this plan meets the
statutory and regulatory requirements, and is consistent with EPA's
guidance. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Kentucky
SIP, pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). On March 12,
2008, EPA issued a revised ozone standard. The current action, however,
is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 ozone standard.
Requirements for the Paducah Area under the 2008 standard will be
addressed in the future.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-1186, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1186, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-1186. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of the Commonwealth's Submittal
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    In accordance with the CAA, the Paducah Area, consisting of
Marshall County and a portion of Livingston County in Kentucky, was
designated as marginal nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
effective November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) because the Area did not meet
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 1992, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky submitted a request to redesignate the Paducah Area to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. At the same time as the
redesignation request, Kentucky submitted the required ozone monitoring
data and maintenance plan to ensure that the Paducah Area would remain
in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard for a period of 10 years,
consistent with the CAA section 175A(a). The maintenance plan submitted
by Kentucky followed EPA guidance for limited maintenance areas, which
applied to 1-hour ozone standard areas with design values less than 85
percent of the applicable standard (0.12 parts per million (ppm)). On
February 7, 1995, EPA approved Kentucky's request to redesignate the
Paducah Area (60 FR 7124) to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final Phase I Implementation
Rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951) (Phase I Rule).
Marshall County and a portion of Livingston County (i.e., which make up
the Paducah Area) were designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, effective June 15, 2004. The Paducah attainment area
consequently was required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the Phase I Rule, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3)
and (4). On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance providing information on
how a state might fulfill the maintenance plan obligation established
by the CAA and the Phase I Rule (Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air
Division Directors, Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-
hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act, May 20,
2005--hereafter referred to as ``Wegman Memorandum''). On December 22,
2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued an opinion that vacated portions of EPA's Phase I
Implementation Rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See South Coast
Air Quality Management District. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006).
The Court vacated those portions of the Rule that provided for
regulation of the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas designated
under Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2 (of part D of the CAA), among
other portions. The Court's decision did not alter any requirements
under the Phase I Rule for section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans. EPA is
proposing to find that Kentucky's May 27, 2008, proposed SIP revision
satisfies the section 110(a)(1) CAA requirements for a plan that
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Paducah Area. On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a
revised ozone standard. The current action, however, is being taken to
address requirements under the 1997 ozone standard. Requirements for
the Paducah Area under the 2008 standard will be addressed in the
future.

II. Analysis of the Commonwealth's Submittal

    On May 27, 2008, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP
revision containing the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the
Paducah Area as required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and the
provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule (see 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)). The purpose
of this maintenance plan is to ensure continued attainment and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Paducah Area until
2020.
    As required, this plan provides for continued attainment and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Paducah Area for 10
years from the effective date of the Area's designation as attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes contingency measures. A
July 15, 2009, submittal from Kentucky updated the emissions
projections for point sources for 2005 and 2008 with actual data, and
revised the point source projections for 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020
based on more recent data. Each of the section 110(a)(1) plan
components is discussed below for the Paducah Area.
    (a) Attainment Inventory. In order to demonstrate maintenance in
the Paducah Area, Kentucky developed comprehensive inventories of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources using 2002 as the
base year. The year 2002 is an appropriate year for Kentucky to base
attainment level emissions because states may select any one of the
three years on which the 1997 8-hour attainment designation was based
(2001, 2002, and 2003). The Commonwealth's submittal contains the
detailed inventory data and summaries by source category. Using the
2002 inventory (as a base year) reflects one of the years used for
calculating the air quality design values on which the 1997 8-hour
ozone designation decisions were based.
    A further practical reason for selecting 2002 as the base year
emission inventory is that section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA and the
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002)
require states to submit emissions inventories for all criteria
pollutants and their precursors every three years, on a schedule that
includes the emissions year 2002. The due date for the 2002 emissions
inventory is established in the Rule as June 2004. In accordance with
these requirements, Kentucky compiles a statewide emissions inventory
for point sources on an annual basis. On-road mobile emissions of VOC
and NOX were estimated using MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle
emissions factor computer model. Non-road mobile emissions data were
derived using the U.S. EPA's Non-Road Model.
    In projecting data for the attainment year 2020 inventory, Kentucky
used several methods to project data from the base year 2002 to the
years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020. These actual and projected
inventories were developed using EPA-approved technologies and
methodologies. Point source and non-point source projections were
derived from the Emissions

Growth Analysis System version 4.0 (EGAS 4.0). Non-road mobile
projections were derived from EGAS 4.0, as well as from the National
Mobile Inventory Model.
    The following tables provide VOC and NOX emissions data
for the 2002 base attainment year inventory; as well as actual VOC and
NOX emission inventory data for 2005 and 2008; and projected
VOC and NOX emission inventory data for 2011, 2014, 2017 and
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The emissions estimates in this table were provided by
Kentucky on July 15, 2009, through John Lyons, Director, Division of
Air Quality, as an update to emissions estimates provided in the May
25, 2007, submittal.

                                              Table 1--Paducah Area
                                      [VOC and NOX Emissions Inventory] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Emissions                        2002     2005     2008     2011     2014     2017     2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC (tons per day).........................    77.46    66.77    21.95    21.87    21.73    21.59    21.64
Total NOX (tons per day).........................     8.40     7.52     7.10     6.62     6.05     5.69     5.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1 above, the Paducah Area is projected to
decrease total VOC and NOX emissions from the base year of
2002 to the maintenance year of 2020, thus demonstrating continued
attainment/maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Total VOC
emissions are projected to steadily decrease from the base year of 2002
through 2017, but are then projected to slightly increase by 0.05 tons
per day between the years 2017 and 2020. However, year 2020 emissions
projected for both VOC and NOx are well under the 2002 baseline year
emissions levels. Thus Kentucky demonstrated that the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard will continue to be maintained.
    As shown in the table above, Kentucky has demonstrated that the
future year emissions will be less than the 2002 base attainment year's
emissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The attainment inventory
submitted by Kentucky for this Area is consistent with the criteria
discussed in the Wegman Memorandum. EPA finds that the actual emissions
levels in 2005, and 2008, along with the future emissions for 2011,
2014, 2017, and 2020 are expected to be less than the emissions levels
in 2002. See Table 2 for design value trends for this Area.
    In the event that a future 8-hour ozone monitoring reading in this
Area is found to violate the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the
contingency plan section of the maintenance plan requires that at least
one of the listed measures will be promptly implemented to ensure that
this Area returns to maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Please see section (d) Contingency Plan, below, for additional
information related to the contingency measures.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration. The primary purpose of a maintenance
plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in
compliance with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 10-year period
following the effective date of designation as unclassifiable/
attainment. The end projection year for the maintenance plan for
Paducah Area was 2020. As discussed in section (a) Attainment Inventory
above, Kentucky identified the level of ozone-forming emissions that
were consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in 2002. For the
original submittal, Kentucky projected VOC and NOX emissions
for the years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 in the Paducah
Area. Subsequently, Kentucky provided updated projections for all
years. EPA finds that the future emissions levels in those years are
expected to be below the emissions levels in 2002.
    Kentucky's SIP revision also relies on a combination of several air
quality measures that will provide for additional 8-hour ozone
emissions reductions in the Paducah Area. These measures include the
potential implementation of the following, among others: (1) Federal
motor vehicle control program; (2) fleet turnover of automobiles; (3)
low reid vapor pressure of gasoline; (4) tier 2 motor vehicle emissions
and fuel standards; (5) heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicles
standard; (6) large nonroad diesel engines rule; (7) nonroad spark
ignition engines and recreational engines standard; (8) point source
emission reductions; (9) Air Products and Chemicals -21-157-00009; (10)
reasonably available control measures, (11) maximum available control
technology; (12) NOX SIP Call; (13) Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR); \2\ (14) several control programs to reduce area source
emissions from aerosol coatings, architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings, and commercial/consumer products; (15) non-
highway mobile source reductions; and (16) emissions standards for
small and large spark-ignition engines, locomotives and land based
diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Despite the legal status of CAIR as remanded, many
facilities have already or are continuing with plans to install
emission controls that may benefit Kentucky areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no sources subject to CAIR or the NOX SIP Call
in the Paducah Area. Hence the recent remand of CAIR does not impact
the maintenance inventories or maintenance demonstration in any way.
Further, the Paducah Area was in attainment prior to implementation of
these rules. Hence any contribution to the reduction in the background
ozone levels from these rules will be in addition to the projected
decreases within the maintenance planning area. These rules are
included in the discussion of the maintenance plan because, even though
the submittal takes no credit for them, they are expected to reduce
transported NOX and ozone from outside the nonattainment
area, providing a further, unquantified improvement in the Area's air
quality.
    (c) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring. The table below shows design
values \3\ for the Paducah Area. The ambient ozone monitoring data was
collected at sites that were selected with assistance from EPA and are
considered to be representative of the area of highest concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The air quality design value at a monitoring site is defined
as that concentration that when reduced to the level of the standard
ensures that the site meets the standard. For a concentration-based
standard, the air quality design value is simply the standard-
related test statistic. Thus, for the primary and secondary ozone
standards, the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration is also the air quality design
value for the site. 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is one monitor in Livingston County in the Paducah Area.
Marshall County does not have a monitor. For the Livingston County
monitor, no design values exceeding the 1997 0.08 ppm standard occurred
in recent years and it is anticipated that the monitor will remain at
the current location, unless otherwise allowed to be removed in
consultation with EPA and in accordance with the 40 CFR part 58.

See, Wegman Memorandum, pages 4 and 5.

              Table 2--Design Values for 8-Hour Ozone (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Paducah area
                                                         ---------------
                          Year                              Livingston
                                                              County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2002...............................................           0.084
2001-2003...............................................           0.084
2002-2004...............................................           0.080
2003-2005...............................................           0.075
2004-2006...............................................           0.072
2005-2007...............................................           0.074
2006-2008...............................................           0.071
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Table above, each of the three-year average available
design values demonstrates attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further,
these design values indicate that the Paducah Area is expected to
continue attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The attainment level for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is 0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm with
the rounding convention. However, in the event that a design value at
Livingston County monitoring site exceeds the 1997 ozone standard, the
contingency plan included in the Kentucky's maintenance plan submittal
includes contingency measures which will be promptly implemented in
accordance with the contingency plan, discussed below.
    (d) Contingency Plan. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii)
and the Wegman Memorandum, the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan
includes contingency provisions to promptly correct a violation of the
1997 ozone NAAQS that may occur. In this maintenance plan, if
contingency measures are triggered by a violation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, Kentucky is committing to adopt one or more of the
contingency measures listed below within nine months following the
trigger, and implement the measures within eighteen months following
the trigger. The contingency measures include: (1) Implementation of a
program to require additional emissions reductions on stationary
sources; (2) requirement for Stage I Vapor Recovery; (3) requirement of
Stage II Vapor Recovery; (4) further restrictions on open burning
during summer ozone season; (5) restriction of certain roads or lanes
to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses
or high-occupancy vehicles; (6) trip-reduction ordinances; (7)
employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives;
(8) programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas, or
other areas of emission concentration, particularly during periods of
peak use; and (9) programs for new construction and major
reconstructions of paths or tracks for use by pedestrians or by non-
motorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public
interest.
    The maintenance plan also includes two additional triggers (which
would occur prior to a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) for an
evaluation of existing control measures to see if any further emission
reduction measures should be implemented at that time. These triggers
are an exceedance of the NAAQS in any portion of the maintenance area
or a ten percent or greater increase in emissions of either VOC or
NOX, based on the 2002 emissions inventory and periodic
emission inventory updates. If either of these triggers occurs,
Kentucky commits to evaluating existing control measures to see if any
further emission reduction measures should be implemented.
    EPA proposes to find that these contingency measures and schedules
for implementation satisfy EPA's guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(1) of continued attainment. Continued attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Paducah Area will depend, in part, on
the air quality measures discussed previously (see section II). In
addition, Kentucky commits to verifying the 1997 8-hour ozone status in
each maintenance plan through annual and periodic evaluations of the
emissions inventories. In the annual evaluations, Kentucky will review
VOC and NOX emission data from stationary point sources.
During the periodic evaluations (every three years), Kentucky will
update the emissions inventory for all emissions source categories, and
compare the updated emissions inventory data with actual 2005 and 2008,
and projected 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 attainment emissions
inventories to verify continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.

III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
for the Paducah Area, which was submitted by Kentucky on May 27, 2008,
as updated in a July 15, 2009, submission, and which ensures continued
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the year 2020. EPA
has evaluated the Commonwealth's submittal and has determined that it
meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, and
is consistent with EPA policy.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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
proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 22, 2009.
 Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-31170 Filed 12-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
"BATTEN, KATIE M"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:27:36
To:
"Jones; DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Workman, Jerry<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: UPDATE RE: PM Testing - update from Ned
Thank you!

To answer your earlier question, we have not been able to collect any valid PM test runs yet.  We will try again with the smaller sample size.  One more note related to the PM testing  -  we conducted method 9 readings during the runs that were already done.  We are working through options, but we may not be able to conduct additional method 9 runs during the additional PM test runs due to personnel limitations.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 2:05 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Workman, Jerry<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: UPDATE RE: PM Testing - update from Ned

Katie  -  Lucky for us, Ned was checking his email on his day off. He agreed with your plan and made the follow comments:

It is likely AECOM is pulling gas into the train way too hard; the maximum sample rate for the train is 0.75 cfm. However, it doesn't sound like detection limits are going to be an issue, so we can drop the criteria to 2 dscm and ask AECOM to lower the sample rate to around 0.5 cfm.

Thanks,
Ned

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 1:20 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Workman, Jerry<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: RE: PM Testing

Hi. Kevin and Ned are both out today. I believe they will be able to respond to you first thing Monday morning (assuming no hurricane damage or internet issues in the interim).

If you need to test before we can get back to you, then continue with your reduced volume plan.

Were you able to get any valid 3-hour runs?

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Workman, Jerry<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: PM Testing

Hi Donna Lee,

We are having some issues with the sample volume requested for the PM testing.  Collecting 3 dscm is creating problems with the sampling train.  See bulleted list below from AECOM who is currently on site doing the testing.  We do not believe there is an issue with detection limits since we are getting significant PM on the filters.  Per AECOM's request below, would it be ok to reduce the sample volume for the PM samples to 2 dscm?

* Particulate loading at the M5 filter and at the CPM filter has required changing of both filters multiple times during the 3-hour test runs.   While this has been done carefully to avoid contamination of the samples, we would like to avoid disassembling the train during the runs as much as possible.
* The sustained exposure to the PM filter to the heat from the stack gas (average 1500-1800F) has strained the integrity of the filter and filter support, especially under the high pressure differentials generated under the high PM loading during the production run.  We had one Method 5 filter fail by splitting during the latter part of the run.
* The high loading during the runs is an indicator that there is not a problem with detection limits on PM.   I'm recommending that we plan subsequent runs for 2 hours (and 2 dscm) instead of 3.   We put 2-hour runs in our sampling protocol for the CD tests submitted to the State of Ohio.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
1011 Warrenville Rd, 6th Floor
Lisle, IL 60532

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 57322-57324]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-14-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission; Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Tontitown Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

September 26, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company's (CenterPoint) proposed
Tontitown Project (Project).
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process \1\ public
comment period we will use to gather input from the public and
interested agencies about the proposed Project. Your input will help
the Commission staff determine which issues need to be evaluated in the
EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on October 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The National Environmental Policy Act requires the
Commission to undertake a process to identify and address concerns
the public may have about a proposed project. This process is
commonly referred to as the ``scoping process''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; Federal, State,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this proposed Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the Commission entitled ``An Interstate
Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a
number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is
available for viewing on the FERC Internet Website (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    CenterPoint proposes to modify its existing interstate natural gas
transmission system. Specifically, CenterPoint proposes to construct
and operate approximately 16.0 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (OM-1-A pipeline) and ancillary facilities adjacent to an
existing interstate natural gas pipeline in Logan and Franklin
Counties, Arkansas.

CenterPoint also proposes to construct and operate a 10,310-horsepower
gas turbine-driven compressor station (Poteau Compressor Station) along
existing natural gas pipelines in Le Flore County, Oklahoma.
    Map depicting the proposed facilities are provided in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced to in this notice will not be
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of these appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site (excluding maps) at http://www.ferc.gov
 or from the Commission's Public Reference Room--(202)

502-8371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction and operation of the proposed pipeline would require
the use of temporary and permanent rights-of-way. CenterPoint has
indicated that it would utilize existing right-of-way easements
adjacent to the proposed pipeline to the extent practicable.
Construction and operation of the proposed compressor station would
require the temporary and permanent use of up to 12.0 acres of land.

The Environmental Review and Assessment Processes

    The Commission's staff has initiated a pre-filing environmental
review of CenterPoint's proposed project. The purpose of the pre-filing
environmental review is to identify and resolve potential environmental
issues prior to the submission of an application for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) by CenterPoint. During a
pre-filing environmental review, the public is encouraged to comment on
environmental issues related to the proposed Project. Upon completion
of staff's pre-filing environmental review, CenterPoint has indicated
that it would file an application for a Certificate. Based upon the
pre-filing environmental review and CenterPoint's application, staff
will prepare an EA as required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) which requires the Commission to consider the environmental
impacts of a proposed project whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate.
    The Commission's staff will prepare an EA that will discuss the
potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project
under the following general headings:
     Geology and Soils.
     Water Resources and Wetlands.
     Fisheries, Vegetation and Wildlife.
     Threatened and Endangered Species.
     Air Quality and Noise.
     Land Use.
     Cultural Resources.
     Pipeline Safety and Reliability.
    The Commission's staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to
the proposed Project including system and route alternatives and make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid potential impacts to affected
environmental resources.
    As noted previously, the NEPA also requires the Commission to
undertake a process to identify and address concerns the public may
have about a proposed project. This process is commonly referred to as
the ``scoping process''. The main goal of the ``scoping process'' is to
identify public concerns so that they can be considered in the
Commission's environmental review. Therefore, to satisfy NEPA
requirements, the Commission requests comments on environmental issues
that should be considered in its environmental review and assessment.
To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section of this notice.
    Upon completion of the staff's environmental review and depending
on the issues identified and/or comments received during the
``scoping'' process, the EA may be published and mailed to Federal,
State and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental
and public interest groups; affected landowners; other interested
parties; local libraries and newspapers; and the Commission's official
service list for this proceeding. A 30-day comment period would be
allotted for review of the EA if it is published. Staff would consider
all comments submitted concerning the EA before making their
recommendations to the Commission.
    Federal, state, or local agencies wishing to participate in staff's
environmental review and the subsequent development of an EA may
request ``cooperating agency'' status. Cooperating agencies are
encouraged to participate in the scoping process and provide staff with
written comments concerning the proposed Project. Agencies wanting to
participate as a cooperating agency should send a letter as indicated
in the public participation section of this notice describing the
extent to which they would like to be involved.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The Commission's staff has already identified numerous
environmental issues it thinks deserves consideration based on its
review of preliminary information submitted by CenterPoint. These
issues include potential impacts to:
     Land use.
     Residences.
     Federally-listed threatened and endangered species.
     Cultural resources; and
     Air and noise quality.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposed Project. By becoming a
commentor, your comments and concerns will be considered in the
environmental review, addressed in the EA and considered by the
Commission. Generally, comments are submitted regarding potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly
recorded, please mail them to our office on or before October 27, 2007.
When filing comments please:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Label one copy of your comments to the attention of Gas
Branch 2, DG2E; and reference Pre-Filing Docket No. PF07-14-000 on the
original and both copies.
    Please note that the Commission encourages the electronic filing of
comments. To file electronic comments online please see the
instructions \3\ on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.

Please note before you can file electronic comments with the Commission
you will need to create a free online account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once CenterPoint files an application for a Certificate with the
Commission, a stakeholder may choose to become an official party to the
proceeding known as an ``intervenor.'' Intervenors are allotted a more
formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at
hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the
Commission's final ruling. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
available on the Commission's Web site. Please note that requests to
intervene will not be accepted until an application for a Certificate
is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort has been made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities that might be

interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project. This
includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors,
landowners whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes,
and landowners with homes within distances defined in the Commission's
regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you would like to remain on the environmental mailing list for
this proposed Project, please return the Mailing List Retention Form
found in Appendix 2. If you do not comment on this proposed Project or
return this form, you will be removed from the Commission's
environmental mailing list.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the proposed Project is available from
the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or
through the Commission's ``eLibrary'' which can be found online at
http://www.ferc.gov. For assistance with the Commission's ``eLibrary'',

contact the helpline at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Additionally, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows stakeholders to keep track of all formal
issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the
amount of time stakeholders spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing them with notification of filings, document
summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this
service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    If applicable, public meetings or site visits associated with this
proposed Project will be posted on the Commission's calendar which can
be found online at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19775 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65156-65161]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0820; Notice No. 25-499-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Interactions of Systems and Structures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc.
Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes
will have novel or unusual features when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. These design features include systems that,
directly or as a result of

failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for these design features. These special conditions contain
the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established
by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is October 31,
2013. We must receive your comments by December 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-0820
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the
comments we receive.

Background

    On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type
certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes. The Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes are
swept-wing monoplanes with a pressurized cabin, and they share an
identical supplier base and significant common design elements. The
fuselage is aluminum alloy material, blended double-bubble design,
sized for nominal 5-abreast seating. Each airplane's powerplant
includes two under-wing Pratt and Whitney PW1524G ultra high-bypass,
geared turbofan engines. Flight controls are fly-by-wire systems with
two passive/uncoupled side sticks. Avionics include five landscape
primary cockpit displays. The dimensions of the airplanes encompass a
wingspan of 115 feet; a height of 37.75 feet; and a length of 114.75
feet for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 127 feet for the Model BD-500-1A11.
Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and
125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds
for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.
Maximum takeoff thrust is 21,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and
23,300 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. The range is 3,394 miles
(5,463 kilometres) for both models of airplanes. The maximum operating
altitude is 41,000 feet for both models of airplanes.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the Model BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR
part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes must
comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR
part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and
the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of
Public Law 92-574, the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes will
incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Systems
that affect the airplane's structural performance, either directly or
as a result of failure or malfunction. That is, the airplane's systems
affect how it responds in maneuver and gust conditions, and thereby
affect its structural capability. These systems may also affect the
aeroelastic stability of the airplane. Such systems include flight
control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load
alleviation systems, and fuel management systems. These systems
represent novel and unusual features when compared to the

technology envisioned in the current airworthiness standards.

Discussion

    The flight control system of the Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
series airplanes will consist of a full authority fly-by-wire system
with normal and direct modes of operation. Special conditions have been
applied on past airplane programs, with similar systems, in order to
require consideration of the effects of those systems on structures.
The regulatory authorities and industry developed standardized criteria
in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum based on the
criteria defined in Advisory Circular 25.672, dated November 11, 1983.
The ARAC recommendations have been incorporated in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications (CS) 25.302 and CS-25
Appendix K. FAA rulemaking on this subject is not complete, thus the
need for special conditions.
    These special conditions are similar to those previously applied to
other airplane models and to EASA CS 25.302. Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA) plans to apply the CS 25.302 version of the special
conditions. The differences between FAA special conditions and the
current CS 25.302, which the FAA regards as minor, are shown below.
    (1) Both these special conditions and CS 25.302 specify the design
load conditions to be considered. Paragraphs 2a(1) and 2b(2)(i) of
these special conditions clarify that, in some cases, different load
conditions are to be considered due to other special conditions or
equivalent level of safety findings.
    (2) Both these special conditions and CS 25.302 allow consideration
of the probability of being in a dispatched configuration when
assessing subsequent failures and potential ``continuation of flight''
loads (see paragraph 2d below). These special conditions, however, also
allow using probability when assessing failures that induce loads at
the ``time of occurrence,'' whereas CS 25.302 does not. The FAA
provision is relieving. The FAA chooses to preserve these minor
differences and go forward with this version of the special conditions.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier
Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to
include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design
feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on two models of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views
that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities
for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 series airplanes.
    1. Interaction of Systems and Structures. General.
    a. For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural
performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or
malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure
conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the
requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25
subparts C and D.
    b. The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with
these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight control
systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation
systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other
systems that either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction
affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for
other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the
specific system.
    c. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses and performances and cannot be
considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety
evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may in some instances
duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These
criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent
continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define
acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements
when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not
provided in these special conditions.
    d. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane,
additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided
in these special conditions in order to demonstrate the capability of
the airplanes to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative
gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load
alleviation system.
    e. The following definitions are applicable to these special
conditions:
    (1) Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the
structural requirements of 14 CFR part 25.
    (2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the
airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that
are included in the flight manual (e.g., speed limitations and
avoidance of severe weather conditions).
    (3) Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight
limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions
before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload and Master Minimum Equipment List
limitations).
    (4) Probabilistic terms: The probabilistic terms (probable,
improbable, extremely improbable) used in these special conditions are
the same as those used in Sec.  25.1309.
    (5) Failure condition: The term ``failure condition'' is the same
as that used in Sec.  25.1309. However, these special conditions apply
only to system failure conditions that affect the structural
performance of the airplane (e.g., system failure conditions that
induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as
gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).
    2. Effect on Systems and Structures. The following criteria will be
used in determining the influence of a system

and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.
    a. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the
following apply:
    (1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating
configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in
subpart C (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of
safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account
any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any
effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up
to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate
of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or any other system
nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative
way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
    (2) The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25
(static strength, residual strength) using the specified factors to
derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of
nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure
the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior
below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions
need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has
design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit
conditions.
    (3) The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements
of Sec.  25.629.
    b. System in the failure condition. For any system failure
condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:
    (1) At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level flight
conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions,
must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of
failure and immediately after failure.
    (i) For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by
an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of
occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The factor of safety (FS) is defined in Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC13.001

    (ii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in
subparagraph 2b(1)(i). For pressurized cabins, these loads must be
combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
    (iii) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the
speeds defined in Sec.  25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that
result in speeds beyond VC/MC, freedom from
aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the
margins intended by Sec.  25.629(b)(2) are maintained.
    (iv) Failures of the system that result in forced structural
vibrations (e.g., oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that
could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
    (2) For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane, in the
system-failed state and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and
flight limitations, the following apply:
    (i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by
special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the
following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC, or
the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight, must
be determined:
    (A) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in Sec.
25.331 and in Sec.  25.345.
    (B) The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in Sec.
25.341 and in Sec.  25.345.
    (C) The limit rolling conditions specified in Sec.  25.349 and the
limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec.  25.367 and Sec.
25.427(b) and (c).
    (D) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in Sec.  25.351.
    (E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
25.473, 25.491, 25.493(d) and 25.503.
    (ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure
must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph 2b(2)(i) of these
special conditions multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the
probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety (FS)
is defined in Figure 2.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC13.002

    (iii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
2b(2)(ii) of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these
loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
    (iv) If the loads induced by the failure condition have a
significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects
must be taken into account.
    (v) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a
speed determined from Figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V' and V'' may
be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the
flight using the margins defined by Sec.  25.629(b).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC13.003

    (vi) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to
V' in Figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition
combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by
Sec.  25.571(b).
    (3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by
other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system
reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure
conditions to be less than 10-9, criteria other than those
specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation
to show continued safe flight and landing.
    c. Failure indications. For system failure detection and
indication, the following apply:
    (1) The system must be checked for failure conditions, not
extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the
level required by part 25 or significantly reduce the

reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable,
the flight crew must be made aware of these failures before flight.
Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and
hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and
electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and
indication systems to achieve the objective of this requirement. These
certification maintenance requirements must be limited to components
that are not readily detectable by normal detection and indication
systems and where service history shows that inspections will provide
an adequate level of safety.
    (2) The existence of any failure condition, not extremely
improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the
structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight
limitations, must be signaled to the flight crew. For example, failure
conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane
strength and the loads of subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins
below V'', must be signaled to the crew during flight.
    d. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be
dispatched in a known system failure condition that affects structural
performance, or affects the reliability of the remaining system to
maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these special
conditions must be met, including the provisions of paragraph 2a for
the dispatched condition, and paragraph 2b for subsequent failures.
Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for
determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and
expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the
dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for
the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such
that the probability of being in this combined failure state and then
subsequently encountering limit load conditions is extremely
improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the
subsequent system failure rate is greater than 10-3 per
hour.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 12, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-25448 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30340-30343]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0340]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for certain navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay. This
action is necessary to protect marine event

participants, spectators and transiting vessels on these navigable
waters during the Youth World's Championship regatta held at the Corpus
Christi Yacht Club. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus
Christi or designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on July 14, 2018 through 3
p.m. on July 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0340 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Kevin Kyles, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable.
This safety zone must be established by July 14, 2018 and we lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process
would delay the establishment of the special local regulation until
after the scheduled date of the regatta and compromise public safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during
the regatta.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the vessel traffic
occurring on July 14, 2018 through July 21, 2018 will be a safety
concern for participants within the boating course. Potential hazards
include risk of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact
among participant vessels and spectator vessels or waterway users if
normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. The purpose of
this rule is to ensure safety of participants, spectators, and
transiting vessels in the regulated area before, during, and after the
Youth World's Championship regatta.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from
6:15 a.m. through 3 p.m. each day from July 14, 2018 through July 21,
2018 in Corpus Christi Bay, approximately 3,000 feet east of People's
Street T-Head in Corpus Christi, TX. The regatta will be inside a
rectangular area with the most northwestern point located at
27[deg]47'31'' N, 97[deg]22'33.05'' W, most northeastern point located
at 27[deg]47'29.46'' N, 97[deg]19'44.26'' W, most southeastern point
located at 27[deg]46'12.06'' N, 97[deg]19'44.78'' W, and the most
southwestern located at 27[deg]46'09.55'' N, 97[deg]22'28.78'' W. The
duration of the special local regulation is intended to protect the
public from potential navigation hazards before, during, and after the
event. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the regulated area
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard
Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM
(156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
    All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by
the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
    Spectator vessels desiring to enter, transit through or within, or
exit the regulated area may do so only with permission from the COTP or
a designated representative, and when permitted, must operate at a
minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger
participants in the regulated area or any other vessels. No spectator
vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of
participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during
the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through
an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the
regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable
channel.
    The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the
movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled
by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop
and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in
expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or
the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the
protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative
can terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the
conclusion of the event.
    The COTP or a designated representative would inform the public of
the enforcement times for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has

not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
duration, and time-of-day for the special local regulation. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely navigate around the regulated area,
which will impact only a small portion of the Laguna Madre for 3 hours
and 15 minutes on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits
during this restriction, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission
from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the regulated
area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is a special local regulation that limits daily
access to certain navigable waters of Corpus Christi Bay over eight
days. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
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; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0340 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0340  Special Local Regulation; Corpus Christi Bay,
Corpus Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a special local regulation: All
navigable waters inside approximate rectangular area from with the most
northwestern point located at 27[deg]47'31'' N, 97[deg]22'33.05'' W,
the most northeastern point being located at 27[deg]47'29.46'' N,
97[deg]19'44.26'' W, the most southeastern point located at
27[deg]46'12.06'' N, 97[deg]19'44.78'' W, and the most southwestern
located at 27[deg]46'09.55'' N, 97[deg]22'28.78'' W, in Corpus Christi
Bay, approximately 3,000 feet east of

People's Street T-Head in Corpus Christi, TX.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 6:15 a.m. on
July 14, 2018 through 3 p.m. on July 21, 2018.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6:15
a.m. through 3 p.m. during each day of the effective period.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  100.35 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a
designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol
Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or
Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on
Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``PATCOM''.
    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by
the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the regulated area.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative
and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe
navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in
the regulated area or any other vessels.
    (4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the
through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for
entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
    (5) Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area, but
may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
    (6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control
the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an
immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so
may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    (7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event
or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for
the protection of life or property.
    (8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate
enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the
event.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices
to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
E.J. Gaynor
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2018-13898 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P