[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40543-40544]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14493]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Request for applicants for appointment to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Technical Mapping Advisory Council.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting
qualified individuals interested in serving on the Technical Mapping
Advisory Council (TMAC) apply for appointment. As established in the
Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes
recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on how to improve, in a cost-
effective manner, the accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and
distribution and dissemination of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and
risk data; and to define performance metrics and milestones required to
effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States.
The appointments are for 3 years each and applicants will be considered
for four vacancies on the TMAC.

DATES: Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. ET on August 8,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Applications for membership should be submitted by one of
the following methods:
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Risk Management Directorate, Attn: Brian Koper, 400 C
Street SW, Suite 6NW-1412, Washington, DC 20472-3020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Koper, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Risk Management Directorate, 400 C Street SW, Suite
6NW-1412, Washington, DC 20472-3020,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The TMAC website is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The TMAC is an advisory committee
established by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012,
42 U.S.C. 4101a, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The TMAC makes
recommendations to FEMA on mapping-related issues and activities,
including mapping standards and guidelines, performance metrics and
milestones, map maintenance, interagency and intergovernmental
coordination, map accuracy, and funding strategies. In addition, the
TMAC submits an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains:
(1) a description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation
of the status and performance of FIRMs and mapping activities to revise
and update FIRMs; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the
Council to the FEMA Administrator.
    Members of the TMAC will be appointed based on their demonstrated
knowledge and competence in areas such as surveying, cartography,
remote sensing, geospatial information systems, or the technical
aspects of preparing and using FIRMs. In order for FEMA to maximize the
impact of the Council and the guidance it provides, the Council must be
diverse with regard to professional and technical expertise. FEMA is
committed to pursuing

opportunities, consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee
that reflects the diversity of the nation's people.
    FEMA is requesting qualified individuals who are interested in
serving on the TMAC to apply for appointment. Applicants will be
considered for appointment for four vacancies on the TMAC, the terms of
which start in summer/fall 2022. Certain members of the TMAC, as
described below, will be appointed to serve as Special Government
Employees (SGE) as defined in title 18 U.S.C. 202(a), while other
members of the TMAC will be appointed to serve as representative
members. Representative members are appointed to provide the
perspective of the organization that they represent. Candidates
selected for appointment will be subject to the Federal conflict of
interest laws and standard of conduct regulations and required to file
a New Entrant Confidential Disclosure Report (OGE 450). This form can
be obtained by visiting the website of the Office of Government Ethics
(http://www.oge.gov); please do not submit this form with your
application. Qualified applicants will be considered for one or more of
the following membership categories with vacancies:
    (a) One representative of a state government agency that has
entered into a cooperating technical partnership with FEMA and has
demonstrated the capability to produce FIRMs;
    (b) One representative of a local government agency that has
entered into cooperating technical partnerships with FEMA and has
demonstrated the capability to produce FIRMs;
    (c) One member (SGE) of a recognized regional flood and storm water
management organization; and,
    (d) One member (SGE) of a recognized risk management association or
organization;
    Members of the TMAC serve terms of three years. There is no
application form. However, applications must include the following
information:
     Applicant's full name;
     Home and business phone numbers;
     Preferred email address;
     Home and business mailing addresses;
     Current position title and organization;
     Resume or curriculum vitae; and
     The membership category of interest (e.g., member of a
recognized professional association or organization representing flood
hazard determination firms).
    The TMAC meets as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not
less than twice a year. Members may be reimbursed for travel and per
diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the
TMAC. All travel for TMAC business must be approved in advance by the
Designated Federal Officer.
    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in
employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital
status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an
employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to
achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment
actions. Current DHS and FEMA employees will not be considered for
membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for
SGE appointments.

Paul Huang,
Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-14493 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1388-1391]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00308]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82449; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-60]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various
Fees and Rebates Set Forth in Section I of the Exchanges Schedule of
Fees

January 5, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 22, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend various fees and rebates set forth
in Section I of the Exchanges Schedule of Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend various fees
and

rebates set forth in Section I of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. Each
proposed change is described in more detail below.
Changes to Maker Rebates and Taker Fees Based on Qualifying Tier
Thresholds
    By way of background, GEMX currently provides volume-based maker
rebates to Market Maker \3\ and Priority Customer \4\ orders in four
tiers based on a member's average daily volume (``ADV'') in the
following categories: (i) Total Affiliated Member ADV \5\ and (ii)
Priority Customer Maker ADV,\6\ as shown in the table below.\7\ In
addition, GEMX charges volume-based taker fees to market participants
based on achieving these volume thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively.
    \4\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s).
    \5\ The Total Affiliated Member ADV category includes all volume
in all symbols and order types, including both maker and taker
volume and volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, Solicitation,
and QCC mechanisms. For purposes of determining a member's
eligibility for the volume-based tiers in the Total Affiliated
Member ADV category, the Exchange uses either numeric thresholds
that measure a member's absolute volume or, as an alternative, a
percentage-based calculation that considers a member's volume
relative to total customer industry volume (i.e., the ``Customer
Total Consolidated Volume''). For purposes of measuring Total
Affiliated Member ADV, Customer Total Consolidated Volume means the
total volume cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the
Customer range in equity and ETF options in that month.
    \6\ The Priority Customer Maker ADV category includes all
Priority Customer volume that adds liquidity in all symbols.
    \7\ All eligible volume from affiliated Members will be
aggregated in determining applicable tiers, provided there is at
least 75% common ownership between the Members as reflected on each
Member's Form BD, Schedule A.
     The highest tier threshold attained above applies retroactively
in a given month to all eligible traded contracts and applies to all
eligible market participants.
     Any day that the market is not open for the entire trading day
or the Exchange instructs members in writing to route their orders
to other markets may be excluded from the ADV calculation; provided
that the Exchange will only remove the day for members that would
have a lower ADV with the day included.

                   Table 1--Qualifying Tier Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Priority customer
       Tier           Total affiliated member ADV         maker ADV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1............  0-99,999......................              0-19,999
Tier 2............  100,000-224,999, or executes           20,000-99,999
                     1% to less than 2% of
                     Customer Total Consolidated
                     Volume.
Tier 3............  225,000-349,999, or executes         100,000-149,999
                     2% to less than 3% of
                     Customer Total Consolidated
                     Volume.
Tier 4............  350,000 or more, or executes         150,000 or more
                     3% or greater of Customer
                     Total Consolidated Volume.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maker Rebates in Penny Symbols and SPY
    Currently, the Exchange provides a maker rebate to Market Maker
orders in Penny Symbols and SPY that is $0.30 per contract in Tier 1,
$0.32 per contract in Tier 2, $0.34 per contract in Tier 3, and $0.45
per contract in Tier 4. The Exchange proposes the following changes to
the maker rebate provided to Market Maker orders in Penny Symbols and
SPY in Tiers 1-3: (i) Decrease the maker rebate to $0.28 per contract
in Tier 1, (ii) decrease the maker rebate to $0.30 per contract in Tier
2, and (iii) increase the maker rebate to $0.35 per contract in Tier 3.
    Currently, the Exchange provides a maker rebate to Priority
Customer orders in Penny Symbols and SPY that is $0.25 per contract in
Tier 1 (or $0.32 per contract for members that execute a Priority
Customer Maker ADV of 5,000 to 19,999 contracts in a given month),
$0.40 per contract in Tier 2, $0.48 per contract in Tier 3, and $0.53
per contract in Tier 4. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the higher
maker rebate provided in Tier 1 for members that execute a Priority
Customer ADV of 5,000 to 19,999 contracts in a given month.
Maker Rebates in Non-Penny Symbols (Excluding Index Options)
    Currently, the Exchange provides a maker rebate to Market Maker
orders in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options) that is $0.40 per
contract in Tier 1, $0.42 per contract in Tier 2, $0.50 per contract in
Tier 3, and $0.75 per contract in Tier 4. The Exchange proposes to
decrease the maker rebate provided to Market Maker orders in Non-Penny
Symbols (excluding index options) to $0.45 in Tier 3.
    Currently, the Exchange provides a maker rebate to Priority
Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options) that is
$0.75 per contract in Tier 1 (or $0.76 per contract for members that
execute a Priority Customer Maker ADV of 5,000 to 19,999 contracts in a
given month), $0.80 per contract in Tier 2, $0.85 per contract in Tier
3, and $1.05 per contract in Tier 4. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
the higher maker rebate provided in Tier 1 for members that execute a
Priority Customer Maker ADV of 5,000 to 19,999 contracts in a given
month.
Taker Fees in Penny Symbols and SPY
    Currently, the Exchange charges a taker fee for Market Makers and
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker \8\ orders in Penny Symbols and SPY that
is $0.49 per contract in Tiers 1-3, and $0.48 per contract in Tier 4,
for trades executed against a Non-Priority Customer.\9\ Firm
Proprietary,\10\ Broker-Dealer,\11\ and Professional Customer \12\
orders in Penny Symbols and SPY are charged a $0.49 per contract taker
fee for trades executed against a Non-Priority Customer, regardless of
the tier achieved. The taker fee is $0.50 per contract for all Non-
Priority Customer orders in Penny Symbols and SPY for trades executed
against a Priority Customer. The Exchange now proposes to increase the
taker fee charged to Non-Priority Customer orders in Penny Symbols and
SPY to $0.50 per contract in Tiers 1-3 for trades executed against a
Non-Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \9\ Non-Priority Customer includes Market Maker, Non-Nasdaq GEMX
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary, Broker-Dealer, and Professional
Customer.
    \10\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account.
    \11\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \12\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taker Fees in Non-Penny Symbols (Excluding Index Options)
    Currently, the Exchange charges a taker fee for Non-Priority
Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols

(excluding index options) that is $0.89 per contract for trades
executed against a Non-Priority Customer, regardless of the tier
achieved. The taker fee is $1.10 per contract for all Non-Priority
Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options) for
trades executed against a Priority Customer. The Exchange now proposes
to increase the taker fee charged to Non-Priority Customer orders in
Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options) to $0.99 per contract in
Tiers 1-3 and $0.94 per contract in Tier 4, in each case for trades
executed against a Non-Priority Customer.
    Currently, the Exchange charges a taker fee for Priority Customer
orders in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options) that is $0.82 per
contract in Tier 1, and $0.81 per contract for Tiers 2-4, for trades
executed against a Non-Priority Customer. The taker fee is $0.85 per
contract for all Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols
(excluding index options) for trades executed against a Priority
Customer. The Exchange now proposes to increase the taker fee charged
to Priority Customer orders in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index
options) to $0.85 per contract in Tiers 1-3 and $0.82 per contract in
Tier 4, in each case for trades executed against a Non-Priority
Customer.
Changes to the Fee for Responses to Crossing Orders (Excluding PIM)
    GEMX currently charges a fee for Responses to Crossing Orders \13\
(excluding PIM orders). In Penny Symbols and SPY, this fee is $0.49 per
contract for Non-Priority Customer orders and $0.45 per contract for
Priority Customer orders. In Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index
options), this fee is $0.89 per contract for Non-Priority Customer
orders and $0.82 per contract for Priority Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Responses to Crossing Order'' is any contra-side interest
(i.e., orders & quotes) submitted after the commencement of an
auction in the Exchange's Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, Block Order Mechanism or Price Improvement Mechanism
(``PIM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase this fee to $0.50 per
contract for all market participants in Penny Symbols and SPY, and
$1.00 per contract for all market participants in Non-Penny Symbols
(excluding index options).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to Maker Rebates and Taker Fees Based on Qualifying Tier
Thresholds
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the proposed
changes to the maker rebates provided to Market Maker and Priority
Customer orders in Penny Symbols and SPY, and in Non-Penny Symbols
(excluding index options), as further discussed above. While the
Exchange is primarily decreasing or eliminating the maker rebates
currently provided to certain Market Maker and Priority Customer orders
(except for increasing the Tier 3 maker rebate for Market Maker orders
in Penny Symbols and SPY), the maker rebates provided to Market Makers
and Priority Customers generally remain more favorable than the maker
rebates provided to all other GEMX market participants. As such, the
Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Market Maker and
Priority Customer maker rebates will continue to incentivize these
market participants to send additional order flow to GEMX, thereby
creating additional liquidity to the benefit of members and investors
that trade on the Exchange. Furthermore, with the proposed changes to
the Market Maker rebate amounts, the tiered maker rebates (i.e.,
ranging from $0.28 to $0.45 per contract for Penny Symbols and SPY, and
from $0.40 to $0.75 per contract for Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index
options)) remain competitive with similar rebates provided by other
options exchanges. For example, MIAX PEARL offers its market makers
tiered makers rebates that range from $0.25 to $0.48 per contract for
penny classes, and from $0.30 to $0.70 per contract for non-penny
classes.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule, Section 1)a). See also Nasdaq
Options Market (``NOM'') Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Sec.
2(1). NOM offers its market makers tiered rebates to add liquidity
that range from $0.20 to $0.42 per contract in penny pilot options.
In non-penny pilot options, the rebate to add liquidity for NOM
market makers is $0.30 per contract if participants add NOM market
maker liquidity in non-penny pilot options of 10,000 or more ADV
contracts per day in a month. See NOM Rules, Chapter XV Options
Pricing, Sec. 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to the maker
rebates as described above are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. As has historically been the case, Market Maker and
Priority Customer orders will continue to earn more favorable maker
rebates in order to encourage that order flow. Market Makers have
different requirements and obligations to the Exchange that other
market participants do not (such as quoting requirements). In addition,
a Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants whose
behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals,
including Professional Customers, who will generally submit a higher
number of orders than Priority Customers. As such, Priority Customer
orders remain entitled to more favorable pricing than other market
participants.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the taker
fees charged to all Non-Priority Customer orders in Penny Symbols and
SPY from $0.49 to $0.50 per contract in Tiers 1-3 because the proposed
change is a modest increase in fees. Furthermore, the proposed taker
fees are within the range of similar fees currently charged by other
options exchanges, including NOM, which assesses all NOM participants
(including customers) a fee for removing liquidity of up to $0.50 per
contract in penny pilot options.\17\ Similarly, the Exchange believes
that the proposed increase in the taker fees assessed to all market
participant orders in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options) as
discussed above is reasonable as the increased fees (ranging from $0.94
to $0.99 per contract for all Non-Priority Customers, and from $0.82 to
$0.85 per contract for all Priority Customers) are still within the
range of (or lower than) similar fees currently charged by other
options exchanges. For example, MIAX PEARL charges tiered taker fees
for non-penny classes ranging from $1.02 to $1.05 per contract for all
MIAX PEARL non-priority customer orders, and from $0.84 to $0.87 per
contract for priority customer orders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NOM Rules, Chapter XV, Sec. 2(1). See also MIAX PEARL
Fee Schedule, Section 1)a) (assessing all MIAX PEARL participants
(other than priority customers) taker fees of up to $0.50 per
contract in penny classes).
    \18\ See MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule, Section 1(a). See also NOM
Rules, Chapter XV, Sec. 2(1) (charging a fee for removing liquidity
in non-penny pilot options that is $0.85 per contract for customers
and professionals, and $1.10 per contract for all other NOM
participants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed increase in
the taker fees for Penny Symbols and SPY, and for Non-Penny Symbols
(excluding

index options), is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the proposed changes will apply uniformly to all similarly-situated
market participants.
Changes to the Fee for Responses to Crossing Orders (Excluding PIM)
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Responses to
Crossing Orders (excluding PIM orders), which are being increased for
all market participants to $0.50 per contract in Penny Symbols and SPY,
and $1.00 per contract in Non-Penny Symbols (excluding index options),
are reasonable because they remain competitive with similar fees
assessed by other options exchanges, including, for example, BOX
Options Exchange (``BOX''), which charges up to $0.50 and $1.15 per
contract for responses in its solicitation or facilitation auction
mechanisms for penny pilot and non-penny pilot classes,
respectively.\19\ As such, the Exchange believes that the response fees
proposed herein are set at levels that the Exchange believes will
remain attractive to market participants that trade on GEMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ BOX charges a fee for responses in the solicitation or
facilitation auction mechanisms for all account types that is $0.25
per contract (for penny pilot classes) and $0.40 per contract (for
non-penny pilot classes). See BOX Fee Schedule, Section I.C. As set
forth in the BOX Fee Schedule, ``[r]esponses to Facilitation and
Solicitation Orders executed in these mechanisms shall be charged
the ``add'' fee.'' Id. at Section III.B, second bullet. For all
account types, this fee (i.e., the Fee for Adding Liquidity) is
$0.25 (for penny pilot classes) and $0.75 (for non-penny pilot
classes). Id. Thus, BOX may charge a fee for responses in its
solicitation or facilitation auction mechanisms of up to $0.50 per
contract (for penny pilot classes) and $1.15 per contract (for non-
penny pilot classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Responses
to Crossing Orders (excluding PIM orders) are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they would uniformly apply to all
similarly-situated market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates in Section I of
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees remain competitive with similar fees
and rebates offered on other options exchanges. The Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to
be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be
more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may
readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes
that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any
burden on competition is extremely limited.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \21\ thereunder.
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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2017-60 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-GEMX-2017-60. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-60 and should be submitted on
or before February 1,  2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00308 Filed 1-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55240-55248]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22022]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9357; 34-67771/August 31, 2012]

Order Making Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Adjustments to Registration
Fee Rates

I. Background

    The Commission collects fees under various provisions of the
securities laws. Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') requires the Commission to collect fees from
issuers on the registration of securities.\1\ Section 13(e) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') requires the
Commission to collect fees on specified repurchases of securities.\2\
Section 14(g) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect
fees on proxy solicitations and statements in corporate control
transactions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78n(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act of 2002 (``Fee
Relief Act'') \4\ required the Commission to make annual adjustments to
the fee rates applicable under these sections for each of the fiscal
years 2003 through 2011 in an attempt to generate collections equal to
yearly targets specified in the statute.\5\ Under the Fee Relief Act,
each year's fee rate was announced on the preceding April 30, and took
effect five days after the date of enactment of the Commission's
regular appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 107-123, 115 Stat. 2390 (2002).
    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(5), 77f(b)(6), 78m(e)(5), 78m(e)(6),
78n(g)(5) and 78n(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') \6\ changed many of the provisions related to
these fees. The Dodd-Frank Act created new annual collection targets
for FY 2012 and thereafter. It also changed the date by which the
Commission must announce a new fiscal year's fee rate (August 31) and
the date on which the new rate takes effect (October 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat.1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Adjustment to the Fee Rate

    Section 6(b)(2) of the Securities Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank
Act, requires the Commission to make an annual adjustment to the fee
rate applicable under Section 6(b).\7\ The annual adjustment to the fee
rate under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act also sets the annual
adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the
Exchange Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(2). The annual adjustments are designed to
adjust the fee rate in a given fiscal year so that, when applied to
the aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are
proposed to be offered for the fiscal year, it is reasonably likely
to produce total fee collections under Section 6(b) equal to the
``target fee collection amount'' specified in Section 6(b)(6)(A) for
that fiscal year.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(e)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 78n(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6(b)(2) sets forth the method for determining the annual
adjustment to the fee rate under Section 6(b) for fiscal year 2013.
Specifically, the Commission must adjust the fee rate under Section
6(b) to a ``rate that, when applied to the baseline estimate of the
aggregate maximum offering prices for [fiscal year 2013], is reasonably
likely to produce aggregate fee collections under [Section 6(b)] that
are equal to the target fee collection amount for [fiscal year 2013].''
That is, the adjusted rate is determined by dividing the ``target fee
collection amount'' for fiscal year 2013 by the ``baseline estimate of
the aggregate maximum offering prices'' for fiscal year 2013.
    Section 6(b)(6)(A) specifies that the ``target fee collection
amount'' for fiscal year 2013 is $455,000,000. Section 6(b)(6)(B)
defines the ``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering
price'' for fiscal year 2013 as ``the baseline estimate of the
aggregate maximum offering price at which securities are proposed to be
offered pursuant to registration statements filed with the Commission
during [fiscal year 2013] as determined by the Commission, after
consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of
Management and Budget * * * .''
    To make the baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering
price for fiscal year 2013, the Commission used a methodology similar
to that developed in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office
(``CBO'') and Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') to project the
aggregate offering price for purposes of the fiscal year 2012 annual
adjustment.\9\ Using this methodology, the Commission determines the
``baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price'' for
fiscal year 2013 to be $3,336,846,226,098.\10\ Based on this estimate,
the Commission calculates the fee rate for fiscal 2013 to be $136.40
per million. This adjusted fee rate applies to Section 6(b) of the
Securities Act, as well as to Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the fiscal year 2011 estimate, the Commission used a
ten-year series of monthly observations ending in March 2011. For
fiscal year 2012, the Commission used a ten-year series ending in
July 2011. For fiscal year 2013, the Commission used a ten-year
series ending in July 2012.
    \10\ Appendix A explains how we determined the ``baseline
estimate of the aggregate maximum offering price'' for fiscal year
2013 using our methodology, and then shows the purely arithmetical
process of calculating the fiscal year 2013 annual adjustment based
on that estimate. The appendix includes the data used by the
Commission in making its ``baseline estimate of the aggregate
maximum offering price'' for fiscal year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Effective Dates of the Annual Adjustments

    The fiscal year 2013 annual adjustments to the fee rates applicable
under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g)
of the

Exchange Act will be effective on October 1, 2012.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(4), 15 U.S.C. 78m(e)(6) and 15 U.S.C.
78n(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Securities Act and
Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange Act,\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 77f(b), 78m(e) and 78n(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is hereby ordered that the fee rates applicable under Section
6(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Exchange
Act shall be $136.40 per million effective on October 1, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.

Appendix A

    With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, Congress has, among other things,
established a target amount of monies to be collected from fees
charged to issuers based on the value of their registrations. This
appendix provides the formula for determining such fees, which the
Commission adjusts annually. Congress has mandated that the
Commission determine these fees based on the ``aggregate maximum
offering prices,'' which measures the aggregate dollar amount of
securities registered with the Commission over the course of the
year. In order to maximize the likelihood that the amount of monies
targeted by Congress will be collected, the fee rate must be set to
reflect projected aggregate maximum offering prices. As a
percentage, the fee rate equals the ratio of the target amounts of
monies to the projected aggregate maximum offering prices.
    For 2013, the Commission has estimated the aggregate maximum
offering prices by projecting forward the trend established in the
previous decade. More specifically, an ARIMA model was used to
forecast the value of the aggregate maximum offering prices for
months subsequent to July 2012, the last month for which the
Commission has data on the aggregate maximum offering prices.
    The following sections describe this process in detail.

A. Baseline Estimate of the Aggregate Maximum Offering Prices for
Fiscal Year 2013

    First, calculate the aggregate maximum offering prices (AMOP)
for each month in the sample (July 2002-July 2012). Next, calculate
the percentage change in the AMOP from month to month.
    Model the monthly percentage change in AMOP as a first order
moving average process. The moving average approach allows one to
model the effect that an exceptionally high (or low) observation of
AMOP tends to be followed by a more ``typical'' value of AMOP.
    Use the estimated moving average model to forecast the monthly
percent change in AMOP. These percent changes can then be applied to
obtain forecasts of the total dollar value of registrations. The
following is a more formal (mathematical) description of the
procedure:
    1. Begin with the monthly data for AMOP. The sample spans ten
years, from July 2002 to July 2012.
    2. Divide each month's AMOP (column C) by the number of trading
days in that month (column B) to obtain the average daily AMOP
(AAMOP, column D).
    3. For each month t, the natural logarithm of AAMOP is reported
in column E.
    4. Calculate the change in log(AAMOP) from the previous month as
[Delta]t = log (AAMOPt) -
log(AAMOPt - 1). This approximates the percentage change.
    5. Estimate the first order moving average model
[Delta]t = [alpha] + [beta]et - 1 +
et, where et denotes the forecast error for
month t. The forecast error is simply the difference between the
one-month ahead forecast and the actual realization of
[Delta]t. The forecast error is expressed as
et = [Delta]t - [alpha] -
[beta]et - 1. The model can be estimated using standard
commercially available software. Using least squares, the estimated
parameter values are [alpha]=0.0016886 and [beta]=-0.85600.
    6. For the month of August 2012 forecast
[Delta]t = \8/12\ = [alpha] +
[beta]et = \7/12\. For all subsequent months, forecast
[Delta]t = [alpha].
    7. Calculate forecasts of log(AAMOP). For example, the forecast
of log(AAMOP) for October 2012 is given by FLAAMOP
t = \10/12\ = log(AAMOP t = \7/12\) + [Delta]
t = \8/12\ + [Delta]t = \9/12\ +
[Delta]t = \10/12\.
    8. Under the assumption that et is normally
distributed, the n-step ahead forecast of AAMOP is given by
exp(FLAAMOPt + [sigma]n\2\/2), where
[sigma]n denotes the standard error of the n-step ahead
forecast.
    9. For October 2012, this gives a forecast AAMOP of $13.0
billion (Column I), and a forecast AMOP of $299.4 billion (Column
J).
    10. Iterate this process through September 2013 to obtain a
baseline estimate of the aggregate maximum offering prices for
fiscal year 2013 of $3,336,846,226,098.

B. Using the Forecasts From A to Calculate the New Fee Rate

    1. Using the data from Table A, estimate the aggregate maximum
offering prices between 10/1/12 and 9/30/13 to be
$3,336,846,226,098.
    2. The rate necessary to collect the target $455,000,000 in fee
revenues set by Congress is then calculated as: $455,000,000 /
$3,336,846,226,098= 0.000136356.
    3. Round the result to the seventh decimal point, yielding a
rate of 0.0001364 (or $136.40 per million).
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE12.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE12.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07SE12.005

[FR Doc. 2012-22022 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15597-15600]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0088]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; USAT Triathlon/Race Rowing Competition;
Black Warrior River; Tuscaloosa, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for a portion of the Black Warrior River, from mile 338.5 to
mile 341.5, Tuscaloosa, AL. This action is necessary for the safeguard
of participants and spectators, including all crews, vessels, and
persons on navigable waters during the USAT Triathlon/Race Rowing
Competition. Entry into, transiting in or anchoring in this area is
prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or not part of the regatta patrol, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective and enforceable with actual notice from 7
a.m. until 6 p.m. on April 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-

0088 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2012-0088 in the ``Search'' box, and then clicking
``Search.'' They are also available for inspection or copying at the
Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays; and U.S. Coast Guard Sector Mobile (spw),
Building 102, Brookley Complex South Broad Street, Mobile, AL 36615,
between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Lt. Lenell J. Carson, Coast Guard Sector
Mobile, Waterways Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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.'' This rule provides proper notice; however, under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which would provide a
comment period with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard received
applications for Marine Event Permits on February 2, 2012, and February
6, 2012, from the University of Alabama and the Tuscaloosa Tourism and
Sports Commission to conduct their events on April 21, 2012. After
reviewing the details of the events and the permit applications, the
Coast Guard determined that a special local regulation is needed and
delaying or foregoing this safety measure to provide a comment period
would be contrary to the public interest. The special local regulation
is needed to safeguard persons and vessels from safety hazards
associated with the USAT Triathlon and Race Rowing Competition.

Basis and Purpose

    The University of Alabama Women's rowing team is sponsoring a Race
Rowing Competition between the University of Alabama and the University
of Iowa on the Black Warrior River. The Tuscaloosa Tourism and Sports
Commission is sponsoring the USAT National Collegiate Championship
Triathlon, and the swimming portion of the race is to take place in the
Black Warrior River. The introduction of rowing vessels and swimmers
into a commercially transited river system poses significant safety
hazards to both swimmers and rowing vessels. The COTP Mobile is
establishing a temporary special local regulation for a portion of the
Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, AL, to safeguard persons and vessels
during the two events.
    The COTP anticipates minimal impact on vessel traffic due to this
regulation. However, this special local regulation is deemed necessary
for the safeguard of life and property within the COTP Mobile zone.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for a portion of the Black Warrior River from mile 338.5 to
mile 341.5, Tuscaloosa, AL. This temporary rule will safeguard life and
property in this area. Entry into, transiting in or anchoring in this
zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or not part of the regatta patrol, unless specifically
authorized by the COTP Mobile or a designated representative. They may
be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or through Coast Guard Sector Mobile
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The COTP Mobile or a designated representative will inform the
public through broadcast notice to mariners of changes in the effective
period for the special local regulation. This rule is effective from 7
a.m. until 6 p.m. on April 21, 2012.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The special local regulation listed in this rule will only restrict
vessel traffic from entering, transiting, or anchoring within a small
portion of the Black Warrior River, Tuscaloosa, AL. The effect of this
regulation will not be significant for several reasons: (1) This rule
will only affect vessel traffic for a short duration; (2) vessels may
request permission from the COTP to transit through the regulated area;
and (3) the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
Notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast
notice to mariners. These notifications will allow the public to plan
operations around the regulated area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in affected portions of the Black Warrior River,
Tuscaloosa, AL, during the two events. This special local regulation
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons. The zone is limited in size,
is of short duration, and vessel traffic may request permission from
the COTP Mobile or a designated representative to enter or transit
through the regulated area.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a special
local regulation, requiring a permit wherein an analysis of the
environmental impact of the regulations was performed. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph (34)(h.), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis
checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required
for this rule.

List of Subjects 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.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T08-0088 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T08-0088  Special Local Regulation; Black Warrior River;
Tuscaloosa, AL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a regulated area: a
portion of the Black Warrior River, from mile 338.5 to mile 341.5,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
    (b) Enforcement dates. This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. until
6 p.m. on April 21, 2012.
    (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The Coast Guard will patrol the
regulated area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol
Commander. 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 Captain of the Port Mobile to patrol the regulated area.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do
so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so
directed by that officer and 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 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) The patrol commander 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.
    (6) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but
may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator
vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated
area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of
the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to
the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the
duration of the event.
    (7) The Patrol Commander 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 Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the special
local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
    (d) Informational Broadcasts. The Captain of the Port or a
designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the regulated area as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
D.J. Rose,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2012-6381 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44544]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20339]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0574; FRL-9968-14-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Programs
Replaced by Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Trading Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
West Virginia. These submittals seek to remove from the West Virginia
SIP two West Virginia regulations that established trading programs
under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The EPA-administered
trading programs under CAIR were discontinued on December 31, 2014 upon
the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which
was promulgated by EPA to replace CAIR. CSAPR established federal
implementation plans (FIPs) for 23 states, including West Virginia. The
submitted SIP revisions request removal of two regulations that
implemented the CAIR annual NOX and annual sulfur dioxide
(SO2) trading programs from the West Virginia SIP. In the
Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the
State's SIP submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views these as noncontroversial submittals and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by October 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0574 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-20339 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52710-52714]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21543]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0289; FRL 9933-19-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District (ICAPCD or the District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). We propose to approve the following SIP
demonstration from ICAPCD: Final 2009 Reasonably Available Control
Technology State Implementation Plan, July 13, 2010. This demonstration
addresses the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. This submitted SIP revision contains ICAPCD's
negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC) source
categories. We propose to approve the submitted reasonably available
control technology (RACT) SIP revision under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow
with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0289, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and the EPA will
not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in
the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213)
244-1810<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal

    A. What document did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this document?
    C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?
    B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the RACT SIP
    D. Public comment and final action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What document did the State submit?

    Table 1 includes the document addressed by this action with the
date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                              Document                   Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD....................................  Final 2009 Reasonably Available            7/13/10         12/21/10
                                             Control Technology State
                                             Implementation Plan (``2009 RACT
                                             SIP'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the RACT SIP submittal for ICAPCD was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There is no previous version of ICAPCD's 2009 RACT SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?

    VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX) help produce ground-level
ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control
VOC and NOX emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require
that SIPs for ozone areas classified as moderate or above require
implementation of RACT for any source covered by an EPA Control
Technique Guideline (CTG) document and any major stationary source of
VOCs or NOX. ICAPCD is subject to this requirement as the
District is designated and classified as a moderate nonattainment area
for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (see 40 CFR 81.305). Therefore,
ICAPCD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all sources
covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG stationary sources
of VOCs or NOX. The District adopted its 2009 RACT SIP
revision on July 13, 2010. ICAPCD received no comments on its RACT SIP
demonstration.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?

    With the implementation of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, ICAPCD
was classified as a marginal nonattainment area (69 FR 23858, April 30,
2004). Subsequently, the EPA found that Imperial County did not meet
attainment by the deadline of June 15, 2007, and reclassified it as a
moderate nonattainment area with an attainment deadline of June 15,
2010 (see 73 FR 8209, February 13, 2008). On December 3, 2009, the EPA
issued a final ruling (74 FR 63309) determining that Imperial County
attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS based on ambient air monitoring data for
the years 2006 through 2008. Although the finding of attainment by the
EPA suspended certain SIP related requirements, it did not suspend the
RACT requirements for VOCs and NOX. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.912(a)(1), the State (or local air district) must submit a SIP
revision that meets the VOC and NOX RACT requirements in CAA
section 182(b)(2) and (f) for each area subject to subpart 2 and
classified moderate or higher. Therefore, ICAPCD must, at a minimum,
adopt RACT-level controls for sources covered by a CTG document and for
any major stationary source of VOCs or NOX.\1\ Any
stationary source that emits or has a potential to emit at least 100
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a moderate
nonattainment area is considered a major stationary source (see CAA
sections 182(b)(2) and (f) and 302(j)). Where there are no existing
sources covered by a particular CTG document or no major stationary
sources of VOCs or NOX, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT
requirements, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no
such sources in the relevant nonattainment area (see Memorandum from
William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006),
``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Questions and Answers'', page 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate CAA section
182 RACT SIPs for ICAPCD include the following:
    1. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
    2. ``Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact
Areas with Deferred Dates''--Final Rule (69 FR 23858; April 30, 2004).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57
FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
    4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register, May 25, 1988, Revised January 11, 1990, U.S. EPA, Air Quality
Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(``The Blue Book'').
    5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule
Deficiencies, August 21, 2001, U.S. EPA Region IX (the ``Little
Bluebook'').
    6. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) (``the
NOX Supplement'').
    7. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers.''
    8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding
of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
    9. ``Final Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard: Classification of Areas That Were Initially
Classified Under Subpart 1; Revision of the Anti-Backsliding Provisions
To Address 1-Hour Contingency Measure Requirements; Deletion of
Obsolete 1-Hour Standard Provision''--Final Rule (77 FR 28424; May 14,
2012).

    10. ``Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably
Available Control Technology'', EPA (June 1992).
    11. ``Beyond VOC RACT Requirements'', EPA-453/R-95-010, (April
1995).
    12. The EPA's CTGs http://www.epa.gov/glo/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html.
    13. CARB's emissions inventory database http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php
    14. CARB and EPA Region IX databases of ICAPCD rules--CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ridb.htm EPA: http://epa.gov/region09/air/sips/index.html
    15. ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements''--Final
Rule (80 FR 12264; March 6, 2015).

B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?

    The 2009 RACT SIP includes three elements, as described further
below:
    1. Evaluations of VOC and NOX rules for sources subject
to a CTG.
    2. Negative declarations where there are no facilities subject to a
CTG.
    3. Major Non-CTG sources of VOC or NOX.
    A summary of our evaluation of each element is provided below. For
additional information concerning our evaluation, please refer to the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2009 RACT SIP which is
available in the docket for this action.
1. Evaluations of VOC and NOX Rules for Sources Subject to a
CTG
    ICAPCD identified 11 CTGs which apply to sources within Imperial
County and are addressed in the RACT SIP. The District also compared
its rules for these sources to similar rules in other air districts,
and concluded their rules meet RACT requirements. We have reviewed
ICAPCD's analysis, including review of the referenced rules, and found
no basis to disagree with ICAPCD's conclusion that it has implemented
RACT for all relevant CTG categories with three clarifications. Rule
413, Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations, and Rule 417, Organic
Solvents, are not required to satisfy RACT. Subsequent to its 2009 RACT
submittal, the District found it had no sources of organic solvent
cleaning within the District that would be subject to the 1977 Solvent
Metal Cleaning CTG for Rule 413, nor any sources subject to the 2006
Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG's nine unit operations for Rule
417.\2\ Therefore, ICAPCD should formally adopt and submit to EPA as a
SIP revision a negative declaration for each of these CTGs. Rule 427,
Automotive Refinishing Operations, is not subject to RACT since it is
not a CTG category and ICAPCD does not have any automobile refinishing
operations that are major sources of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ICAPCD--Supplemental to 2009 RACT SIP--Analysis of Control
Technologies Guidance (CTG) Documents, July 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Negative Declarations Where There Are No Facilities Subject to a CTG
    Negative declarations are only required for CTG source categories
for which the District has no sources covered by the CTG. A negative
declaration is not required for non-CTG source categories. Table 2
below lists the CTG source categories for the 2009 RACT SIP. The
District indicated it does not currently have, nor does it anticipate
sources subject to the CTGs in these categories in the future. We
searched CARB's emissions inventory database to verify there are no
facilities in ICAPCD that might be subject to the CTGs listed below. We
concur with the District's negative declarations.

                  Table 2--ICAPCD Negative Declarations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CTG Source category                CTG Reference document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace.........................  EPA-453/R-97-004, Aerospace CTG and
                                     MACT.
Automobile and Light-duty Trucks,   EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of
 Surface Coating of.                 Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                     Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
                                     Light-Duty Trucks.
                                    EPA-453/R-08-006, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Automobile and Light-
                                     Duty Truck Assembly Coatings.
Cans and Coils, Surface Coating of  EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                     Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
                                     Light-Duty Trucks.
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing.....  EPA-453/R-08-004, Controls
                                     Techniques Guidelines for
                                     Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing.
Flat Wood Paneling, Surface         EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of
 Coating of.                         Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     VII: Factory Surface Coating of
                                     Flat Wood Paneling.
                                    EPA-453/R-06-004, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling
                                     Coatings.
Flexible Packing Printing.........  EPA-453/R-06-003, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Flexible Package
                                     Printing.
Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and       EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of
 Flexography.                        Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources, Volume
                                     III: Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and
                                     Flexography.
Large Appliances, Surface Coating   EPA-450/2-77-034, Control of
 of.                                 Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     V: Surface Coating of Large
                                     Appliances.
                                    EPA-453/R-07-004, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Large Appliance
                                     Coatings.
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners......  EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
Offset Lithographic Printing and    EPA-453/R-06-002, Control Techniques
 Letterpress Printing.               Guidelines for Offset Lithographic
                                     Printing and Letterpress Printing.
Magnet Wire, Surface Coating for    EPA-450/2-77-033, Control of
 Insulation of.                      Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     IV: Surface Coating of Insulation
                                     of Magnet Wire.
Metal Furniture Coatings..........  EPA-450/2-77-032, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     III: Surface Coating of Metal
                                     Furniture.
                                    EPA-453/R-07-005, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Metal Furniture
                                     Coatings.
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic     EPA-453/R-08-003, Control Techniques
 Parts Coatings.                     Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal
                                     and Plastic Parts Coatings.

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and       EPA-450/2-78-015, Control of
 Products, Surface Coating of.       Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     IV: Surface Coating of
                                     Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
                                     Products.
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives  EPA-453/R-08-005, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Miscellaneous
                                     Industrial Adhesives.
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing     EPA-450/2-83-007, Control of
 Plants Equipment Leaks.             Volatile Organic Compound Equipment
                                     Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline
                                     Processing Plants.
Paper, Film and Foil Coatings.....  EPA-453R-07-003, Control Techniques
                                     Guidelines for Paper, Film and Foil
                                     Coatings.
Petroleum Refineries..............  EPA-450/2-77-025, Control of
                                     Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
                                     Wastewater Separators, and Process
                                     Unit Turnarounds.
                                    EPA-450/2-78-036, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
                                     from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.
Pharmaceutical Products...........  EPA-450/2-78-029, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Manufacture of Synthesized
                                     Pharmaceutical Products.
Pneumatic Rubber Tires,             EPA-450/2-78-030, Control of
 Manufacture of.                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
                                     Tires.
Polyester Resin...................  EPA-450/3-83-008, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Manufacture of High-Density
                                     Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
                                     Polystyrene Resins.
                                    EPA-450/3-83-006, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
                                     from Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                     Equipment.
Shipbuilding/Repair...............  EPA-453/R-94-032, Shipbuilding/
                                     Repair.
Synthetic Organic Chemical........  EPA-450/3-84-015, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Air Oxidation Processes in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.
                                    EPA-450/4-91-031, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Reactor Processes and
                                     Distillation Operations in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.
Wood Furniture....................  EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Major Non-CTG Sources of VOC or NOX
    CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) require RACT for stationary source
categories covered by CTG documents and all major stationary sources of
VOCs or NOX. ICAPCD was initially classified as subpart 1
marginal nonattainment for ozone, but was subsequently reclassified as
subpart 2 moderate.\3\ A major source in a moderate ozone nonattainment
area is defined as a stationary source that emits, or has the potential
to emit, at least 100 tons per year of VOCs or NOX.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004), and 77 FR 28424 (May 14,
2012) (codified at 40 CFR 81.305 (California--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS)).
    \4\ See CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) and 302(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICAPCD's 2009 RACT SIP, Table 3, lists nine facilities that were
major sources of VOC or NOX at that time, along with the
respective RACT rules for each facility. Three of the facilities listed
did not have any VOC or NOX RACT rules listed as applicable.
We found that one of the facilities, CalEnergy, is currently permitted
with a total annual potential to emit of 1.8 tons per year of benzene
(VOC).\5\ Another facility, ORMAT Nevada, Inc., had a regenerative
thermal oxidizer added to the facility subsequent to the 2009 RACT SIP
publication, and the potential to emit is now 19.6 tons per year of
VOC.\6\ The third facility, GEM Resources (ORMESA, LLC), is subject to
permit conditions which limits its potential to emit to 28.29 tons/year
for VOCs and 9.94 tons/year for benzene.\7\ Therefore, all of these
facilities are now well below the 100 tons/year threshold and are not
major sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Authority to
Construct and Permit to Operate Review, Permit #2000H-9 (March 4,
2015) Table 8.
    \6\ Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Synthetic
Minor Permit Review, Permit 1641B-3 (September 23, 2010) page 7.
    \7\ Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Conditions
for Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate #2002I-4 (April 7,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICAPCD adopted VOC and NOX rules which are applicable to
the remaining six major source facilities. The EPA approved the
following VOC rules into the California SIP: Rule 414, Storage of
Reactive Organic Compounds, (73 FR 70883, November 24, 2008), and Rule
415, Transfer and Storage of Gasoline, (70 FR 8520, February 22, 2005).
The following NOX rules were approved into the SIP by the
EPA: Rule 400, Fuel Burning Equipment--Oxides of Nitrogen, (68 FR
14161, March 24, 2003), Rule 400.1, Stationary Gas Turbines, (77 FR
2469, January 18, 2012), and Rule 400.2, Boilers, Process Heaters and
Steam Generators, (78 FR 896, January 7, 2013). Our previous approvals
of Rules 400.1 and 400.2 found that they fulfilled RACT requirements.
We are not aware of information suggesting that additional controls are
needed to fulfill RACT since our approval of these rules. Our approval
of Rule 400 did not include an evaluation of ozone RACT requirements.
However, since each of the NOX sources subject to Rule 400
is also subject to at least one additional NOX rule that the
EPA has found to fulfill RACT requirements, it is not necessary to
determine whether Rule 400 fulfills RACT requirements at this time.
    Subsequent to the 2009 RACT SIP submittal, ICAPCD adopted Rule
400.4, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Wallboard Kilns, to address
a major source of NOX emissions from one of their facilities
(U.S. Gypsum). The EPA approved it into the California SIP (79 FR
60070, October 6, 2014) as satisfying RACT requirements.
    We also reviewed CARB's facilities inventory for the Imperial
County, and are not aware of additional relevant major sources.
4. Conclusion
    We find that ICAPCD's 2009 RACT SIP, including the negative
declarations, adequately addresses RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Our TSD has more information on our evaluation of the RACT SIP
submission.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the RACT SIP

    The TSD describes additional revisions to the rules that we
recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules, but
are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
to fully approve the submitted SIP revision because we believe it
fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal until October 1, 2015. Unless we receive

convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to
publish a final approval action that will incorporate this RACT
submission into the Federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 11, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-21543 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P