[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 6552]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13954-001]

Mahoning Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: P-13954-001.
    c. Date Filed: December 7, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: Mahoning Hydropower, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Berlin Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Mahoning River in Mahoning County, Ohio. The
project would occupy United States lands administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Anthony Marra, Mahoning Hydropower,
LLC, 11365 Normandy Lane, Chagrin Falls, OH 44023;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Lee Emery at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Mahoning Hydropower, LLC filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on December 7, 2011. Mahoning Hydropower,
LLC provided public notice of its request on December 9, 2011. In a
letter dated February 2, 2012, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Mahoning Hydropower's request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part
402; and (b) the Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer, as required
by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    m. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: February 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2856 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21876-21883]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0234]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Kilauea Lava Flow Ocean Entry on
Southeast Side of Island of Hawaii, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent safety zone
surrounding the area of entry of lava from the Kilauea volcano into the
Pacific Ocean on the southeast side of the Island of Hawaii, HI. This
action is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential
hazards associated with molten lava entering the ocean. This regulation
prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone during
active lava flow reaching the Pacific Ocean on Kilauea volcano's
southeast coast unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Honolulu or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice May 11, 2018. For
purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used if active lava
associated with the Kilauea activity enters into the Pacific Ocean
prior to May 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0234 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander John Bannon, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
FRFA Final regulatory flexibility analysis
HVO Hawaii Volcano Observatory
IRFA Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section symbol
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
TFR Temporary final rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    Molten lava that enters the ocean is potentially hazardous to
anyone near it, particularly when lava deltas collapse. A lava delta is
new land that forms when lava accumulates above sea level, and extends
from the existing base of a sea cliff. Persons and vessels near active
lava flow ocean-entry sites face potential hazards, including--
     Plumes of hot, corrosive seawater laden with hydrochloric
acid and fine volcanic particles that can irritate the skin, eyes, and
lungs;
     Explosions of debris and eruptions of scalding water from
hot rock entering the ocean;
     Sudden lava delta collapses; and
     Waves associated with these explosions and collapses.
    Lava began entering the ocean at the Kamokuna lava delta on Kilauea
volcano's south coast in July 2016. Lava continued to enter the ocean
at the Kamokuna lava delta from July 2016 to mid-November 2017.
    Ocean safety concerns began on December 31, 2016, when a large
portion of the new lava delta collapsed into the ocean, producing waves
and explosions of debris at 19[deg]19'12'' N, 155[deg]02'24'' W near
the Kamokuna entry point. Following this collapse, portions of the
adjacent sea cliff continued to collapse into the Pacific Ocean,
producing localized waves and showers of debris.
    In March 2017, a new delta began to form at the Kamokuna ocean-
entry point, and from March 2017 to July 2017, several collapses of the
lava bench were observed by National Park Service and Hawaiian Volcano
Observatory (HVO) staff. Beginning in the middle of November 2017, the
lava flow slowed down and subsequently stopped entering the ocean, and
as of March 2018, the lava flow remains inactive.
    Though the Kamokuna lava delta is not currently active, this region
and associated coastline remains hazardous both to visitors on land and
to the boating public due to active seismic and lava activity
associated with the Kilauea lava flow. According to the HVO, which is
part of the U.S. Geological Survey and responsible for monitoring
volcanoes and earthquakes in Hawaii, the lava delta remains unstable
and resumed ocean lava flow is realistic. Hazards to the public include
hot gases, lava, scalding water, unstable vertical sea

cliffs and possible sudden explosions should the lava delta begin to
collapse. Additionally, cracks parallel to the sea cliff in the
surrounding area indicate that further collapses with little or no
warning are possible. Therefore, the safety zone remains relevant. When
the safety zone is being enforced, access into the safety zone can
still be requested to the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu.
    On March 28, 2017, the COTP Honolulu issued a temporary final rule
(TFR) under docket number USCG-2017-0172. The TFR established a safety
zone to immediately protect persons and vessels from the potential
hazards associated with molten lava entering the ocean. The safety zone
encompassed all waters extending 300 meters (984 feet) in every
direction around all ocean-entry points of lava. The Coast Guard
prohibited entry of persons or vessels into the safety zone, unless
authorized by the COTP Honolulu, or his designated representative.
    The TFR was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 16109) on
April 3, 2017. A six-month extension of the TFR was published in the
Federal Register (82 FR 45461) on September 29, 2017, extending the TFR
through March 28, 2018. The TFR extension allowed the Coast Guard to
analyze the economic impact of the safety zone and provide for
additional public comment.
    On April 3, 2017, the Coast Guard also published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR 16142), which
proposed to make the temporary safety zone a final rule, and invited
the public to comment during the comment period. During this comment
period, which ended June 2, 2017, we received 67 comments.
    On May 8, 2017, we held a public meeting in Hilo, HI, that allowed
local citizens and small businesses affected by the TFR to discuss the
lava safety concerns, the safety zone impact, and the impact the
proposed rule would have on ocean users. Participants were encouraged
to submit formal feedback to the rulemaking docket.
    On December 20, 2017, the Coast Guard published a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in the Federal Register (82 FR
60341). Its purpose was to address additional concerns related to the
potential impact of the safety zone on small entities should lava flow
resume. Lava flow entering the ocean ended in November, 2017. The SNPRM
addressed the past and future concerns, and invited the public to
further comment during the comment period, which ended February 20,
2018. During this comment period, we received two comments that were
not germane to the rulemaking and only one from the public.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed due
to recent volcanic activity. Active eruption of lava and gas has
recently commenced and continues from Kilauea Volcano. On Friday, May
4, 2018, a magnitude 6.9 earthquake was measured in the region and HVO
advises that more should be expected with a larger aftershocks
potentially producing rockfalls, localized tsunamis, and associated ash
clouds. High levels of lava and volcanic gas including Sulphur Dioxide
are being emitted from the fissure vents. In consideration of the
events, safety hazards and concerns, the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this regulation effective immediately. This
rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters
with the safety zone.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP Honolulu has determined that there are potential hazards
associated with the molten lava at the Kamokuna lava delta or future
locations associated with the Kilauea lava flow, which pose potential
safety concerns for anyone within 300 meters of the ocean-entry point.
    The purpose of this rule is to establish a permanent safety zone
around the lava flow entry area associated with the Kilauea lava delta
entry coastline to mitigate ocean hazards during times when lava is
entering the ocean. Additionally, this rule allows the Coast Guard to
impose and enforce restrictions on vessels operating near the lava flow
that enters the ocean as the Coast Guard determines necessary. This
action is necessary to promote safe navigation, and to preserve the
safety of life and property. Vessels capable of safely operating inside
the safety zone may be authorized to enter by the COTP Honolulu or his
designated representative. Vessels approved for transiting within the
safety zone during active lava ocean entry are required to adhere to
specific conditions set by the COTP Honolulu. Mariners who seek initial
authorization to enter the safety zone when there is active lava ocean
entry must submit a written request by email or letter. The request
must explain how the vessel will operate safely in proximity to lava. A
typical request should note the vessel's condition, the operator's
familiarity with the surrounding waters, and any specific safety
practices for operating near the lava ocean-entry points. Once initial
authorization is received, a vessel owner or operator only needs to
contact COTP Honolulu by phone or radio to request permission to enter
the safety zone.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    In response to the NPRM, the Coast Guard received 67 public
comments. In addition to both the NPRM and the public meeting held in
Hilo, HI, on May 8, 2017, we published a SNPRM to further address
economic impacts on small entities potentially affected by the safety
zone. The Coast Guard received two public comments on the SNPRM,
neither of which were germane to the rulemaking. All public comments
and the public meeting summary are available in the docket for this
rulemaking where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    Based on all the comments received, the Coast Guard adopts the rule
as proposed in the NPRM and supplemented in the SNPRM as 33 CFR
165.1414 without major change. After review of the SNPRM proposed
language, we made a minor edit to paragraph (c) to clarify that this is
no longer proposed language. In paragraph (c)(2), we also further
clarify that entry into or remaining in this safety zone, when
enforced, is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Honolulu or his
designated representative. This clarification is necessary to highlight
that when lava is not a threat to mariners, the safety zone is not
enforced. Finally, in paragraph (c)(3), we added further clarification
that notice for entry into the safety zone is necessary only when the
safety zone is enforced.
    We received nine comments on the NPRM in support of the proposed
rule. One commenter noted that he had taken a lava boat tour and felt
that the vessel got too close to the entry point and that he
experienced adverse health symptoms from being in the lava plume.
Several commenters agreed that the safety zone should be consistent
with that of the landside restriction of 300 meters. Other commenters
supported the safety zone due to the hazards resulting from the entry
of volcanic lava into the ocean.
    The Coast Guard received 18 comments regarding the safety zone's
size and location. These comments ranged from being in favor of the
300-meter safety zone to being opposed.

Nine opposing views stated that 300 meters is excessively restrictive.
One comment from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration stated
that the Coast Guard should ``provide definitive bounding coordinates
for the safety zone, instead of a general statement that the safety
zone will encompass all waters extending 300 meters in all directions
around the entry point of lava flow into the ocean associated with the
lava flow at the Kamokuna lava delta or Kilauea crater.''
    We believe that because of the unpredictable and varying nature of
the active lava flowing into the ocean at this area, the Coast Guard
cannot issue specific geographic coordinates of the safety zone in the
final rule, but will note the current entry site and update for future
sites. We note, with the concurrence of NOAA's Nautical Data Branch,
Marine Chart Division, the position 19[deg]19'08'' N, 155[deg]02'36''
W. These are the coordinates provided for Kamokuna Beach in the U.S.
Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System. Future lava
entry locations may vary from the Kamokuna Beach location.
    Additionally, because of the varying dangers of the lava entry and
fragile bench shelf development, the Coast Guard cannot provide a
specific distance at which a vessel can safely operate. However, the
COTP Honolulu has permitted vessels to operate within the 300-meter
safety zone under certain conditions when the safety zone is actively
enforced.
    The Coast Guard received one comment from Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park supporting a safety zone ``that is flexible to account for
whatever location the lava may occur since it is not a static event in
time or space,'' and a recommendation ``that the proposed rule apply
not just to the Kamokuna ocean-entry point, but any location in the
future where lava enters the ocean.''
    We agree, and the final rule includes language stating that all
locations associated with the Kilauea lava flow entering the Pacific
Ocean on the eastern side of the Island of Hawaii, HI, are included
under the safety zone.
    Sixteen commenters recommended that the Coast Guard reduce the 300-
meter radius of the safety zone.
    We believe that based on Sector Honolulu's review of the historical
observations of delta collapses and ejecta distances from HVO records,
a radius of 300 meters remains a safe and reasonable distance for a
high-hazard zone for the general boating public. The HVO reports that
explosions from delta collapses ``have hurled hot rocks nearly a meter
(yard) in size as far as about 250 m (273 yards) inland from the
collapsed delta and scattered rock debris onshore over an area the size
of several football fields. These explosions also hurl rocks seaward,
probably to similar distances.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/hawaii_ocean_entry.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 300-meter safety zone also mirrors land and air restrictions
for lava flow viewing. Furthermore, HVO staff reiterated the need for a
300-meter safety zone at the public meeting held on this rulemaking.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard will maintain the safety zone's 300-meter
radius, with the option of allowing operators to request authorization
to enter the safety zone from the COTP Honolulu.
    The Coast Guard received 30 comments in favor of allowing the lava
tour-boat owners and operators to enter and operate in the safety zone.
    Under this final rule, any vessel owner or operator may submit a
written request to the COTP Honolulu, or his designated representative,
for authorization to enter the safety zone. Such written requests must
explain how the vessel will operate safely in proximity to lava. A
typical request should note the vessel's condition, the operator's
familiarity with the surrounding waters, and any specific safety
practices for operating near the lava ocean-entry points. Once initial
authorization is received, a vessel owner or operator only needs to
contact COTP Honolulu by phone or radio to request permission to enter
the safety zone. Prior to the NPRM, the Coast Guard promulgated a TFR
for a 300-meter safety zone at the Kamokuna lava delta. Pursuant to the
TFR, the COTP Honolulu granted four lava tour-boat owners and operators
and one photographer access to operate within the safety zone. If lava
begins to flow into the ocean again, these tour operators will be
granted renewed permission to enter the safety zone. The Coast Guard
received three comments regarding access or exclusive access to the
lava flow by Hawaiian natives. This rule is concerned with the safety
aspect of access to the lava flow area. Mandating exclusive access to
the lava flow is outside the scope of this rulemaking and is outside
the Coast Guard's authority. When the safety zone is enforced, this
rule provides guidance for requesting permission to enter the safety
zone from the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative.
    The Coast Guard received one comment regarding the lack of reliable
VHF radio communications near the lava flow area, thereby preventing
lava tour-boat owners and operators from hailing the Coast Guard via
VHF radio.
    We are aware of the VHF radio limitations in this area, and are
currently researching how to improve radio coverage. The COTP Honolulu
and Coast Guard Base Honolulu are attempting to install equipment in
the vicinity to enhance communications in this area. In the meantime,
vessel owners and operators are encouraged to use alternate means to
communicate effectively near the lava flow ocean-entry points. They are
also encouraged to contact the Coast Guard in advance of their transits
to the lava ocean-entry points and departure in order to facilitate
effective communications as well as the timely processing of any
written request for authorization to enter the safety zone.
    The Coast Guard received four comments regarding general unsafe
conditions at the boat ramp where tour operators launch.
    Boat ramps and associated safe boating concerns are a state
management issue. We have forwarded this comment to the appropriate
state office.
    One comment proposed the safety zone be stationary and move with
the lava shelf, essentially creating a moving safety zone.
    Title 33 CFR 165.20 defines a safety zone as a water area to which,
for safety purposes, access is limited to authorized persons or
vessels. It further states that a safety zone may be stationary and
described by fixed limits. We believe that in this situation, the entry
point of the lava changes based on flow, and as such, the safety zone
would encompass all waters extending 300 meters (984 feet) in all
directions around the entry point of lava flow into the ocean. The
Coast Guard does not define this as a moving safety zone around a
moving object, but rather as a necessary adjustment to a dynamic
environmental occurrence, which may have multiple lava entry points.
    The Coast Guard also received a comment stating that our
certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), concerning the economic impact on
small entities, was potentially arbitrary as it lacked any factual
basis for the certification. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis
in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, was conducted through an SNPRM, which allowed for public comment.
The Coast Guard received no comments on the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA).
    The Coast Guard received two comments regarding Executive Order
13771, Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs, which directs a reduction of the
promulgation of new regulations. As discussed in the following section,
this rule is exempt from this Executive order.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, directs agencies to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and
controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this
rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from
the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled 'Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (April 5, 2017).
    We only received one public comment on the SNPRM and it was beyond
the scope of this regulation. Therefore, we adopt the preliminary
regulatory analysis for the proposed rule as final. A summary of that
analysis follows.
    This regulatory analysis provides an evaluation of the economic
impacts associated with this final rule. The Coast Guard is issuing a
final rule to ensure the safety of mariners, lava tour-boat passengers,
and the protection of property by establishing a 300-meter safety zone
from every direction and all points where lava enters the ocean. In
order to mitigate the potential costs of this rule, the Coast Guard has
and will continue to issue exemptions to mariners that can demonstrate
a level of safety sufficient for the additional hazards present where
lava enters the ocean.
    In November 2017, lava ceased flowing from Kilauea volcano into the
Pacific Ocean. Consequently, the Coast Guard has temporarily stopped
enforcing the safety zone. In the final rule, we added regulatory text
clarifying that the regulation is only enforced when lava is actively
flowing into the ocean. This change will not impose any economic costs
on any mariners or members of the public because it does not create any
requirements. Other than changes clarifying that the safety zone is
enforced as long as lava flows into the ocean, we made no further
changes to the regulatory text.
    Table 1 provides a summary of the affected population, costs, and
benefits of this rule.

              Table 1--Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected population.......................  4 tour boat operators.
Costs to industry.........................  593.88.
Costs to government.......................  378.00.
Total costs...............................  971.88.
Unquantified benefits.....................  Protection from unsafe
                                             operations where vessels
                                             enter the safety zone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected Population
    This final rule makes permanent the existing TFR safety zone for
the navigable waters surrounding the entry of lava from Kilauea volcano
into the Pacific Ocean. The TFR restricted access to those vessels that
contacted the COTP Honolulu and requested permission to enter the
temporary safety zone.
    Therefore, this rule affects any vessel that would normally travel
within 300 meters of points where lava reaches the ocean. Due to the
hazards and relative remoteness of the area, the Coast Guard is not
aware of any vessel operations within 300 meters of where lava enters
the ocean other than those conducted by lava tour-boat owners and
operators. While the TFR was still in effect, the COTP Honolulu granted
four lava tour-boat owners and operators and one photographer
authorization to enter the safety zone under certain conditions. When
lava reenters the safety zone, these four tour operators will
constitute the affected population because the Coast Guard does not
believe other entities are likely to operate near the safety zone.
Costs
    Under the TFR, published concurrently with the NPRM on April 3,
2017, vessel owners and operators were required to prepare and submit a
written request to the COTP Honolulu to enter the safety zone. Because
the requirements of this final rule are consistent with the
requirements in the TFR, we are presenting the costs associated with
the TFR in this final rule. Tour operators that previously applied will
be grandfathered in and permitted to operate in the safety zone when
the lava flow returns in the future. Additional operators that wish to
enter the safety zone will need to submit written requests to the COTP
Honolulu. The Coast Guard is not aware of any additional individuals
that are likely to request access to enter the safety zone in the
future.
    The written request requirement was contained in the previous TFR
and each lava tour-boat owner and operator seeking authorization to
enter the safety zone complied. Based on discussions with COTP Honolulu
personnel, we estimated it takes about four hours for a vessel owner or
operator to submit a written request to enter the safety zone. This
includes the time it would take lava tour-boat owners and operators to
respond to questions from the COTP concerning the written request. Lava
tour-boat owners and operators would only be required to make a written
request once rather than for each voyage. The Coast Guard is not aware
that any voyages were terminated due to a lack of authorization to
enter the safety zone during the period operators requested to enter.
    We obtained the mean hourly wage rate for a captain of a lava tour-
boat from the May 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational
Employment Statistics National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates. Based on BLS data, the mean hourly wage rate for captains,
mates, and pilots of water vessels with the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) occupational code of 53-5021 in the
``Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water'' industry is $24.42.\2\
Because this is an unloaded

hourly wage rate, we added a load factor of 1.52 derived from the May
2016 BLS ``Employer Cost for Compensation'' database to obtain a loaded
hourly wage rate of $37.12.\3\ Using this information, we estimated the
one-time initial cost for an owner or operator to prepare a written
request and respond to comments from the Coast Guard to be $148.47.\4\
Therefore, we estimated the total cost of the proposed rule on tour
operators to be $593.88.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Captains, mates, and pilots may work in numerous industries.
We use the BLS industry-specific mean hourly wage rate for the
affected tour boat operators from the ``Scenic and Sightseeing
Transportation, Water'' industry. See http://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes535021.htm.
    \3\ A loaded wage rate is what a company pays per hour to employ
a person, not an hourly wage. The loaded wage rate includes the cost
of benefits (health insurance, vacation, etc.). The load factor for
wages is calculated by dividing total compensation by wages and
salaries. For this analysis, we used BLS Employer cost of employee
compensation/Transportation and Materials Moving Occupations,
Private Industry Report (Series IDs, CMU2010000520000D and
CMU2020000520000D) for all workers using the multi-screen data
search. Using 2016 Q4 data for the cost of compensation per hour
worked, we divided the total compensation amount of $28.15 by the
wage and salary amount of $18.53 to obtain the load factor of 1.52,
rounded. See the following websites: https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[oe]&s=popularity:D and https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?cm. Multiplying 1.52 by $24.42, we obtained a loaded hourly
wage rate of $37.12, rounded.
    \4\ $37.12 x 4 hours.
    \5\ $148.47 x 4 tour operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since all four lava tour-boat owners and operators were each
granted permission to enter the safety zone through an initial written
request, the only cost to these lava tour-boat owners and operators was
the cost of the initial request. Each owner or operator would also be
required to notify the COTP Honolulu by phone during the normal course
of their duties before entering the safety zone. We did not estimate a
cost for the call because the equipment already exists onboard each
vessel and the time cost is minimal. The total costs to industry are
therefore $593.88.
    Government costs to implement this rule include the one-time cost
of reviewing the written requests. We did not estimate a cost for the
time to receive a call from an owner or operator when entering the
safety zone because the COTP Honolulu conducts this review in the
normal course of duties and the time requirements are minimal. To
process the written requests, we estimated one non-commissioned officer
with a rank of E-7, and three officers with ranks of O-4, O-5, and O-6
would take about one hour each to review the written request. Based on
the labor rates listed in Table 2,\6\ we estimated the total cost of
the rule to the Federal government to be $378.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We obtained the hourly wage rates for government personnel
from Enclosure (2) of Commandant Instruction 7310.1R (29 March 2017)
using the ``In Government Rate.''

                           Table 2--Total Government Costs of the Temporary Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Rank                                   Wage rate      Labor hours     Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7.............................................................             $65               1             $65
O-4.............................................................              92               1              92
O-5.............................................................             104               1             104
O-6.............................................................             117               1             117
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  ..............               4             378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimated the total cost of this rule to lava tour-boat owners
and operators and to the Federal government to be $971.88.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ $593.88 in costs to industry + $378 in costs to the Coast
Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    Lava flow that enters the ocean is potentially hazardous and
presents a danger to vessels navigating within close proximity of where
the flow enters the ocean, particularly when lava deltas collapse.
These hazards include, but are not limited to, plumes of hot, corrosive
seawater laden with hydrochloric acid and fine volcanic particles that
can irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs; explosions of debris and
eruptions of scalding water from hot rock entering the ocean; sudden
lava delta collapses; and waves associated with these explosions and
collapses. The primary benefit of this rule is to promote safe
navigation, and preserve the safety of life and property by ensuring
that vessel operators are prepared for the greater risks present where
lava enters the ocean. If vessel operators wish to transit through the
safety zone they will be required to first contact the COTP Honolulu
for permission with an explanation of how their safety and lifesaving
equipment is adequate to meet the greater risks present.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164
(codified at 5 U.S.C. 601-612)) establishes ``as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the
objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider
flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See RFA section 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164, 1165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act Administrative Procedure Act, after being
required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice
of proposed rulemaking, the agency must prepare a FRFA or have the head
of the agency certify pursuant to RFA section 605(b) that the rule will
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The RA prescribes the content of
the FRFA, which we discuss below.
    In accordance with the RFA, the Coast Guard prepared this FRFA that
examines the impacts of the final rule on small entities. A small
entity may be:
     A small independent business, defined as independently
owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its
field per the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632);
     A small not-for-profit organization (any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field); or
     A small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer
than 50,000 people).
    This FRFA addresses the following:
    (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
    (2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
    (3) The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for

Advocacy of the SBA in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed
statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as
a result of the comments;
    (4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
    (5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record;
    (6) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
    Below is a discussion of FRFA analysis by each of these six
elements:
    (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule.
    Lava entered the ocean at Kamokuna on Kilauea volcano's south coast
between July of 2016 and November of 2017. Lava will continue to enter
the ocean again in the foreseeable future. When lava enters the ocean,
potential hazards emerge such as: Plumes of corrosive seawater can
irritate the skin, eyes, and lungs; explosions of debris and scalding
water can injure passengers; collapses of lava deltas can cause large
waves potentially capsizing vessels. Unless vessels have the proper
equipment and their operators take sufficient precautions, passengers
and operators face significant hazards to their lives as well as
property. This rule is necessary to promote navigational safety,
provide for the safety of life and property, and facilitate and
accommodate the reasonable demands of commerce related to tourism
surrounding the lava ocean-entry points.
    This safety zone will ensure the safety of mariners, lava tour-boat
passengers, and the protection of property by establishing a 300-meter
safety zone from every direction and all points where lava enters the
ocean.
    (2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments.
    We only received one public comment which was beyond the scope of
the rule; therefore, we made no changes to the proposed rule as a
result of public comments.
    (3) The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in response to the proposed rule, and a
detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final
rule as a result of the comments.
    We received no comments the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
    (4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available.
    This rule affects any vessel that would normally travel within 300
meters of points where lava reaches the ocean. Due to the hazards and
relative remoteness of such an area, the Coast Guard believes only lava
tour operators would regularly operate within 300 meters of a point
where lava enters the ocean. Based on the Coast Guard's understanding,
there are four known lava tour-boat operators and one photographer who
regularly come within 300 meters of the Kilauea lava flow.
    Of the four lava tour-boat owners and operators who would transit
within the safety zone, we could not find publically available
information such as annual revenues and number of employees for three
of the four operators. We assumed these three operators qualified as
small entities. We found revenue information on the fourth lava tour-
boat owner. Using Manta, a publicly available database for businesses
in the United States, we found this lava tour-boat owner to have annual
revenues of $220,000 and a NAICS code of 561520, ``Tour Operators.''
\9\ This NAICS code has a size threshold of $20.5 million for annual
revenues, based on the Small Business Administration's table of size
standards.\10\ Based on this information, this lava tour-boat operator
also qualified as a small entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Accessed July 17, 2017 from https://www.manta.com/c/mb05066/kalapana-cultural-tours-inc.
    \10\ https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on discussions with COTP Honolulu personnel and using the
wage rates and labor hour estimates as established above, we estimated
it would take about four hours for an owner or operator of a lava tour-
boat to prepare a written request to enter the safety zone. This
includes the time it would take lava tour-boat owners or operators to
respond to questions from the COTP concerning the written request. Lava
tour-boat owners and operators would be only required to make this
request once rather than for every voyage.
    Above we obtained a loaded hourly wage rate of $37.12 for captains,
mates, and pilots of water vessels. We estimated the one-time initial
cost for an owner or operator to prepare a written request and respond
to comments from the Coast Guard to be about $148.47. We estimated the
total cost of the rule on tour operators to be about $593.88.
    As mentioned above, we only found revenue data on one of the four
operators. Therefore, we estimate the initial revenue impact of this
rule on this lava tour-boat owner to be about $148.47, which is 0.07%
of the company's revenue. There are no annual revenue impacts because
the written request needs to be made once, after which each lava tour-
boat operator would notify the COTP Honolulu by phone to obtain
permission to enter the safety on a given day.
    (5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record.
    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    (6) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
    The Coast Guard considered the alternative of not establishing a
safety zone. However, without a safety zone, vessel owners and
operators would be unprepared for the greater hazards that are present
near the Kilauea lava flow ocean-entry point. These vessel owners and
operators and passengers could suffer grave injury or in the extreme
case death, in addition to damage to or loss of property, if adequate
protection is not provided. Therefore, the Coast Guard decided a safety
zone was necessary to promote navigational

safety, provide for the safety of life and property, and to accommodate
and facilitate the reasonable demands of commerce relating to tourism
surrounding the lava entry points. No cost to industry or government
would be associated with this alternative; nevertheless, we rejected
this alternative because it would not ensure that the boating public
would operate within a safe distance of where the lava flow enters the
ocean.
    Alternatively, the Coast Guard could have instituted a safety zone
without permitting any entry into the safety zone. This alternative
would have imposed substantial cost onto the four small entity tour
operators. As a result, the Coast Guard did not select this
alternative.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves establishing a safety zone that would prohibit persons
and vessels from entry into the 300-meter (984 feet) safety zone
extending in all directions around the entry of lava flow into the
Pacific Ocean. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1, of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a specified environmental impact from
this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1414 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1414   Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Kilauea Lava Flow Ocean
Entry on Southeast Side of Island of Hawaii, HI.

    (a) Location. The safety zone area is located within the Captain of
the Port (COTP) Honolulu Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and encompasses all
primary areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor at the
Kilauea active lava flow entry into the Pacific Ocean on the southeast
side of the Island of Hawaii, HI. The entry point of the lava may
change based on flow. The safety zone encompasses all waters extending
300 meters (984 feet) in all directions around entry points of lava
flow into the ocean associated with the Kilauea active lava flow.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the COTP Honolulu to assist in enforcing the safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply to this safety zone.
    (1) All persons and vessels are required to comply with the general
regulations governing safety zones found in this part.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone when enforced is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Honolulu, or his designated
representative.
    (3) Persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone identified
in paragraph (a) of this section should submit a written request to the
COTP Honolulu before initial entry into the safety zone when the Coast
Guard notifies the public of safety zone enforcement. The request must
explain how the vessel will operate safely in proximity to lava. A
typical request should note the vessel's condition, the operator's
familiarity with the surrounding waters, and any specific safety
practices for

operating near the lava ocean-entry points. Persons authorized initial
entry may, thereafter, contact the COTP Honolulu through his designated
representatives at the Command Center via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> and
808-842-2601; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to
request permission to transit the safety zone.
    (4) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the COTP Honolulu, or his designated
representative, and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain
a safe course while transiting through or in the safety zone as well as
maintain a safe distance from the lava hazards.
    (5) The COTP Honolulu will provide notice of enforcement of the
safety zone described in this section by verbal radio broadcasts and
written notice to mariners. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHZ). The COTP Honolulu and his or her designated representatives can
be contacted at telephone number listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
    (6) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement
of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    Dated: May 7, 2018.
M.C. Long,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2018-10049 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23969]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09637]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Ewan 1, INC. n/k/a AccessKey IP, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

April 19, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Ewan 1, Inc. n/k/a AccessKey IP, Inc. (``AccessKey'') because it has
not filed a periodic report since it filed its registration pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') on August 21,
2002.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of AccessKey. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section
12(k) of the Exchange Act, that trading in the securities of AccessKey
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 19, 2013,
through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 2, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09637 Filed 4-19-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11503]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0369; FRL-9125-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a site-specific revision to the
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter less
than 10 microns (PM10) for Aggregate Industries Yard A
Facility in Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. On May 19, 2009, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requested that EPA approve certain
portions of a joint Title I/Title V document into the Minnesota
PM10 SIP for this facility. The State is also requesting in
this submittal that EPA rescind the Administrative Order issued to J.L.
Shiely Company which is currently included in Minnesota's SIP for
PM10. The emissions units previously owned by J.L. Shiely
Company are now owned by Aggregate Industries. Because the
PM10 emission limits are being reduced, the air quality of
Ramsey County will be protected.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0369, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Acting Chief, Criteria
Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial submittal 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 rule, 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.
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. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010-5120 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6778-6779]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2165-091]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amended Shoreline Management Plan.
    b. Project No: 2165-091.
    c. Date Filed: December 20, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Warrior River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Black Warrior River and Sipsey Fork in Cullman,
Walker, Winston, and Tuscaloosa counties, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Laura Winston, Alabama Power Company, 600
18th Street North, Shoreline Management 12N-0791, Birmingham, Alabama
35203,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: March 25, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2165-091. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: As required by ordering paragraph (D) of
the January 7, 2013 Order Modifying and Approving Shoreline Management
Plan, Alabama Power Company (licensee) underwent a six-year review
process (including stakeholder consultation) and as a result, requests
Commission approval of an amended shoreline management plan (SMP) for
the project. The licensee proposes minor changes to the approved SMP,
as follows: (1) Removing the requirement for a shoreline

classification called Developed National Forest Service Lands; (2)
expansion of the residential non-project use permitting process (e.g.,
for closed-loop geothermal systems and dry hydrants); and (3) expanding
the licensee's authority to permit existing reservoir crossings (e.g.,
roads, bridges, utility lines, etc.).
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: February 21, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03437 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38541-38542]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15465]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0029; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01216-T;
Amendment 39-21631; AD 2021-14-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes and Model FALCON
2000EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that non-certified
ANCRA seat tracks were installed on some airplanes and that those seat
tracks might not sustain required loads during an emergency landing.
This AD requires replacement of certain ANCRA seat tracks with
certified (Brownline) seat tracks, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 26, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0029.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0029; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0188, dated August 24, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0188) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes and Model
FALCON 2000EX airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes and Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR
11189). The NPRM was prompted by a report that non-certified ANCRA seat
tracks were installed on some airplanes and that those seat tracks
might not sustain required loads during an emergency landing. The NPRM
proposed to require replacement of certain ANCRA seat tracks with
certified (Brownline) seat tracks, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0188.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address seat tracks that could fail
and lead to seat detachment during an emergency landing, which could
result in injury to airplane occupants and prevent evacuation of the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0188 specifies procedures for replacement of certain
ANCRA seat tracks with certified (Brownline) seat tracks. This material
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                    Parts cost             Cost per  product       Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 work-hours x $85 per hour =   Up to $1,900.............  Up to $2,750.............  Up to $13,750.
 $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in
more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-14-04 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-21631; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0029; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01216-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 26, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes
and Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-
0188, dated August 24, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0188).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that non-certified ANCRA seat
tracks were installed on some airplanes and that those seat tracks
might not sustain required loads during an emergency landing. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address seat tracks that could fail and
lead to seat detachment during an emergency landing, which could
result in injury to airplane occupants and prevent evacuation of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0188.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0188

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0188 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0188 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0188
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault
Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0188,
dated August 24, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0188, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0029.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 22, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15465 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74396-74398]
[DOCID:fr31de07-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57038; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-93]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to $5 Strike Price Intervals of Options on Exchange-Traded
Fund Shares above $200

December 21, 2007.
    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 19, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
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 substantially prepared by the Phlx. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which rendered the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx proposes to amend Commentary .05 to Exchange Rule 1012
(``Series of Options Open for Trading'') to clarify that strike price
intervals of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (``ETFs'') will be
$5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Strike price intervals for series of options on ETFs were
initially established at $1 or greater where the strike price is
$200 or less. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44055 (March
8, 2001), 66 FR 15310 (March 16, 2001) (SR-Phlx-2001-32) (filing
silent regarding strike price intervals where the strike price is
over $200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Phlx, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com.

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 clarify that strike
price intervals of options on ETFs will be $5 or greater where the
strike price is over $200. Commentary .05 to Phlx Rule 1012 currently
states that strike price intervals of options on ETFs will be $1 or
greater when the strike price of the underlying asset is $200 or less.
As such, most ETF options, which have become popular investment tools,
are priced at $1 strike price intervals.\6\ However, some ETF options
are listed at $10 strike price intervals at strike prices greater than
$200.\7\ According to the Exchange, within the last few months, the
Phlx has received requests from Phlx traders to price ETF options at $5
strike price intervals above $200. Because the Exchange does not
currently have a provision that allows ETF options to list and trade at
$5 or greater strike price intervals where the strike price is more
than $200, however, the Exchange has only been able to list these ETF
options at $10 or greater strike price intervals.\8\ This has put Phlx
at a competitive disadvantage, particularly with respect to options
exchanges that allow $5 strike price intervals for ETF options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposal establishing strike price intervals for series
of options on ETFs at $1 or greater where the strike price is $200
or less did not discuss strike price intervals where the strike
price is over $200. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44055
(March 8, 2001), 66 FR 15310 (March 16, 2001)(SR-Phlx-2001-32).
    \7\ For example, ETF options trading under the symbols ILF, FXI,
MDY, and EEM are all listed at strike prices greater than $200.
    \8\ Commentary .05(a) to Phlx Rule 1012 states, among other
things, that strike prices of options may be $2.50 or greater where
the strike price is $25 or less, $5 or greater where the strike
price is more than $25 but less than $200, and $10 or greater where
the strike price is $200 or more.
    \9\ See, e.g., Amex Rule 903 stating that options on ETFs may
trade at $5 strike price intervals where the strike price is over
$200. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 40157 (July 1, 1998),
63 FR 37426 (July 10, 1998) (SR-AMEX-1996-44) and 48024 (June 12,
2003), 68 FR 36617 (June 18, 2003) (SR-AMEX-2003-36). Supplementary
Material .01 to Chapter IV, Sec. 6 of BOX rules similarly allows
listing and trading of ETF options at $5 strike price intervals
where the strike price is over $200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rule proposal to clarify the
availability of $5 strike price intervals for ETF options above $200
should enable Phlx to competitively list and trade ETF options at
appropriate strike price intervals to the benefit of public customers,
traders on the Exchange, and the Exchange itself.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general
to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that the proposal would achieve this by allowing
listing and trading of options on ETFs at $5 strike price intervals
within certain parameters, commensurate with the rules of other options
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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 by the
Exchange.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\13\
because the foregoing proposed rule does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under
the Act,\14\ Phlx provided the Commission with written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description
and text of the proposed rule change, prior to the date of the filing
of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-93 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-93. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-93 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2008.

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

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

[FR Doc. E7-25366 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P