[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48572-48573]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0015; Notice 2]

Volvo Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
120, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer
load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of
more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). VTNA filed a noncompliance
information report dated February 9, 2017. VTNA also petitioned NHTSA
on February 28, 2017, and revised its petition on April 29, 2017, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin
Bressant, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty
trucks do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2(b) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims and
motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds). VTNA filed a noncompliance report dated February 9,
2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. VTNA also petitioned NHTSA on February 28,
2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
and revised its petition on April 29, 2017, to obtain an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on July 20, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR
33549). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0015.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 862 MY 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017
Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks, manufactured between August 15, 2016, and
November 10, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: VTNA explains that the noncompliance is that
the wheels on the subject vehicles incorrectly identify the rim size as
24.5'' x 8.25'' instead of 22.5'' x 8.25'', and therefore do not meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120. Specifically,
the marking error overstates the wheel diameter by 2''.
    IV. Rule Text: paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 states:

    S5.2 Rim marking. Each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer
in the case of a single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with
the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
paragraph, in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, impressed
to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to a
height of not less than 0.125 millimeters . . .
    (b) The rim size designation, and in case of multipiece rims,
the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.

    V. Summary of VTNA's Petition: VTNA described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, VTNA referenced a letter to NHTSA,
dated December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products
(Arconic), which is the rim manufacturer, and provided the following
reasoning:
    1. A 24.5'' inch tire will not seat on the rim; therefore, if
someone tries to mount a 24.5'' tire to the rim, it will not hold air
and therefore cannot be inflated.
    2. When tires are replaced, the technician will select the tire
based on the size and rating of the tire being replaced. When Volvo
manufactured the vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5'' (i.e. the correct
size for the rim). Therefore, the tires installed by Volvo have the
correct size on the sidewall of the tire.
    3. Volvo is required to list the tires size and inflation pressures
on the certification label as required by 49 CFR 567. The information
printed on the label is the correct size, a 22.5'' inch tire and
reflects the tires that were installed when manufactured. The
certification label is located inside the driver's door and can be
easily accessed by the tire installer.
    Volvo concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    To view VTNA's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID

number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.

NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA Analysis: VTNA explains that the noncompliance is that the
wheels on the subject vehicles incorrectly identify the rim size as
24.5'' x 8.25'' instead of 22.5'' x 8.25'', and therefore do not meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120. Specifically,
the marking error overstates the wheel diameter by 2''.
    NHTSA has reviewed VTNA's analyses that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and provides the following
analysis:
    When it comes to mating a tire and rim combination, it becomes very
apparent very quickly that either an oversized tire on a rim or an
undersized tire on the same sized rim will not properly seat to that
rim. In this particular case (the former) as VTNA has mentioned in its
petition, if someone tries to mount a 24.5'' inch tire on an undersized
rim (22.5''), it will not hold air and therefore cannot be inflated.
The inability to mount the incorrect tire on the rim precludes one's
ability to actually drive with an incorrect tire-rim combination on
public roadways. Furthermore, FMVSS No. 120 paragraph S5.3 requires
vehicles be labeled with proper tire/rim size combinations. This
additional information is available to provide the vehicle operator or
technician with the correct tire/rim size information.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that VTNA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 120
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, VTNA's petition is hereby granted and VTNA is consequently
exempted from the obligation to provide notification of, and remedy
for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that VTNA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after VTNA notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-22516 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


E  1 APPENDIX E. Ecological Effects Data Studies are with imazapyr acid, unless otherwise noted 71 1 Avian Acute Oral Bobwhite Quail. MRID 00131633 ( Acceptable). In a 14 day oral gavage study, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to bobwhite quail with an LD 50 of > 2,150 mg ae/ kg. The study is scientifically sound and follows the guideline protocols.

Mallard Duck. MRID 00131634 ( Acceptable). In a 14 day oral gavage study, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to mallard ducks with an LD 50 of > 2,150 mg ae/ kg. The study is scientifically sound and follows the guideline protocols.

71 2 Avian Subacute Dietary Imazapyr acid Bobwhite Quail. MRID 00131635 ( Acceptable). In an 8 day dietary study, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to upland game birds ( bobwhite quail) with an LC 50 > 5000 ppm. The study is scientifically sound and generally followed guideline protocols; however, there was some unexplainable low weight gains and mortality at the 625 ppm test concentration.

Mallard. MRID 00131636 ( Acceptable). In an 8 day dietary study, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to mallard ducklings with an LC 50 > 5000 ppm.. The study is scientifically sound and generally followed guideline protocols.

Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Bobwhite Quail. MRID 00147115 ( Acceptable). In an 8 day dietary study, the isopropylamine salt of imazapyr was determined to be practically non toxic to upland game birds ( bobwhite quail) with an LC 50 > 5000 ppm. The study is scientifically sound and generally followed guideline protocols. This study was conducted with the formulated product to ensure that isopropylamine did not affect the toxicity of the active ingredient.

71 4 Avian Reproduction Bobwhite Quail. MRID 45119714a ( Acceptable). In a one generation reproductive toxicity study, imazapyr acid produced no evidence of treatment related adverse effects on adult or reproductive parameters with an NOAEC of 1670 ppm. The study is scientifically sound and generally followed guideline protocols.

Mallard. MRID 45119714b ( Invalid). In a one generation reproductive toxicity study, imazapyr acid resulted in a significant reduction in the ratio of viable embryos/ eggs at the 1,670 ppm E  2 treatment level. However, the study was determined to be invalid due to bacterial contamination and high embryonic mortality in the controls. EFED recommended that another study be conducted to determine the reproductive toxicity of imazapyr to waterfowl.

Bobwhite Quail. MRID 43831401 ( Originally Supplemental; Reclassified Core). In a onegeneration reproductive toxicity study, imazapyr acid resulted in reduced hatchlings/ live embryo at 2000 ppm ( LOEC; NOEC = 1000 ppm); however, the study was originally determined to be supplemental due to guideline deficiencies ( primarily, EECs would be higher than highest dose tested and control egg shell cracking was 13%). EFED reevaluated the studies and determined that the dosing did reflect the maximum EEC and that the handling and measurement deficiencies did not reflect a dose response relationship; consequently, the study was reclassified as core and the NOEC was changed to 2000 ppm.

Mallard. MRID 43831402 ( Originally Supplemental; Reclassified Core). In a one generation reproductive toxicity study, imazapyr acid produced no evidence of treatment related adverse effects on adult or reproductive parameters with an NOAEC of 1890 ppm ( measured concentration; 2000 ppm nominal concentration). However, the study was originally determined to be supplemental due to guideline deficiencies ( primarily, EECs would be higher than highest dose tested, inaccurate measurement of egg shell thickness, and insufficient pre egg laying period. EFED reevaluated the studies and determined that the dosing did reflect the maximum EEC and that the measurement deficiencies did not reflect a dose response relationship; consequently, the study was reclassified as core and the NOAEC was established at 2000 ppm.

72 1 Freshwater Fish Acute Imazapyr acid Rainbow Trout. MRID 00131629 ( Acceptable). In a 96 hour acute test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to rainbow trout with an LC 50 of > 100 mg/ L. The NOEC was determined to be 100 mg/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Bluegill Sunfish. MRID 00131630 ( Acceptable). In a 96 hour acute test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to bluegill sunfish with an LC 50 of > 100 mg/ L. The NOEC was determined to be 100 mg/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Channel Catfish. MRID 00131631( Acceptable). In a 96 hour acute test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to channel catfish with an LC 50 of > 100 mg/ L. The NOEC was determined to be 100 mg/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Rainbow Trout. MRID 45119713 ( Acceptable). In a 96 hour flow through test, imazapyr isopropylamine salt was determined to be practically non toxic to rainbow trout with an LC 50 of > 110 mg ae/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 120 mg ae/ L). The NOEC was determined to be 110 mg ae/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline E  3 protocols.

Bluegill Sunfish. MRID 00147116 ( Acceptable). In a 96 hour test, imazapyr isopropylamine salt was determined to be practically non toxic to bluegill sunfish with an LC 50 of > 818 mg ae/ L ( 1000 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

72 2 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Imazapyr acid Daphnia. MRID 00131632 ( Core). In a 48 hour acute test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to daphnids with an EC 50 of > 100 mg/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Daphnia. MRID 00147117 ( Core). In a 48 hour static test, imazapyr isopropylamine salt was determined to be practically non toxic to daphnids with an EC 50 of 614 mg ae/ L ( 750 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

72 3a Estuarine/ Marine Fish Acute Silverside Minnow. MRID 41315801( Acceptable). In a 96 hour flow through test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to silverside minnow with an LC 50 of > 184 mg ai/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 200 mg ai/ L). The NOEC was determined to be 184 mg ai/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

72 3b Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrate Acute Eastern Oyster. MRID 45119710 ( Acceptable). In a 96 hour flow through test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to the eastern oyster with an EC 50 of > 132 mg ai/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 120 mg ai/ L). No mortalities were observed in either the treated or control groups. The control shell deposition during the study was 2.46 mm. The NOAEC was determined to be 132 mg ai/ L, the highest concentration tested. No significant adverse effects were observed on shell deposition for any treated group. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Eastern Oyster. MRID 41315802 ( Supplemental). In a 96 hour flow through test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to the eastern oyster with an EC 50 of > 173 mg ai/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 200 mg ai/ L; the highest concentration tested). No mortalities were observed in either the treated or control groups. There was a statistically significant decrease in mean shell deposition at 173 mg/ L when compared to the control group ( p # 0.05). The NOAEC was determined to be 109 mg ai/ L. Originally, this study was classified as invalid because the control oyster growth ( 1.35 mm new shell deposition) did not meet the guideline requirement of 2 mm ( amendment to SEP, dated 9/ 1990). In addition, the E  4 flow rate of the test solution was 1.05 L/ oyster/ hour. The protocols recommended by the SEP ( APHA, 1981 and EPA, 1976) state that each oyster should receive a minimum of 5 L/ oyster/ hour. This study was later upgraded to supplemental. The memorandum stated that shell growth in the control group may be used as an indicator of stress for the oysters. Less than 2 mm shell growth in the control group indicates that the oysters may be undergoing stress. The low flow through rate with no supplemental food added in this study may have contributed to stress on the oysters. For this study, it appears that the seawater was trucked in from the ocean to Gainesville, Florida. During such time, the food organisms ( such as algae) may have been inhibited during the transport and storage. The oysters in the study may not have fed well because of the combination of the lower amount of available food organisms in the shipped sea water, the low flow rate and the lack of supplemental food added; thereby, contributing to inadequate shell deposition. However, since there was some dose response, the study was upgraded to supplemental.

Pink Shrimp. MRID 41315803 ( Acceptable). In a 96 hour flow through test, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to pink shrimp with an LC 50 of > 189 mg ai/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 200 mg ai/ L). There was one mortality at the second highest concentration level ( 111 mg/ L), which does not appear to be related to treatment. No other signs of toxicity were observed. Therefore, the NOAEC was determined to be 189 mg ai/ L, the highest concentration tested. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

72 4a Freshwater Fish Early Life Stage Fathead Minnow. MRID 45119711 ( Acceptable). In an early life stage flow through test, imazapyr acid produced no treatment related effects on embryonic survival, time to hatch, alevin survival, terminal length, or wet and dry weight. The NOEC was determined to be 118 mg ai/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 120 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Rainbow Trout. MRID 41315804 ( Supplemental). In an early life stage flow through test, imazapyr acid resulted in significantly reduced percent hatch and an observed reduction on survival at 92.4 mg/ L ( mean measured concentration; nominal concentration 100 mg/ L). No abnormalities in embryonic or juvenile development were observed. The MATC was > 43.1 and < 92.4 mg/ L; thus the geometric mean MATC was 63.1 mg/ L. The study did not meet all guideline requirements ( feeding limited the growth of replicates with higher fish densities).

72 4b Freshwater Invertebrate Life Cycle Daphnia. MRID 41315805 ( Acceptable). In a life cycle flow through test, imazapyr acid produced no treatment related effects on survival, growth and reproduction of first generation daphnids. No physical or behavioral abnormalities were observed. The MATC and NOEL were determined to be $ 97.1 mg/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols. E  5 72 5 Freshwater Fish Life Cycle Fathead Minnow. MRID 45119712 ( Supplemental). In a full life cycle flow through test, imazapyr acid produced no treatment related effects on growth, embryo survival, time to hatch, or larval and juvenile survival of the F 0 and F 1 generations. No treatment related effects were observed on percent spawning frequency, mean number of eggs produced per female or mean percent fertilization success. The NOEC was reported at the nominal concentration of 120 mg ai/ L ( mean measured concentration 118 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically valid but did not meet all guideline requirements ( F 1 generation was maintained for 4 weeks instead of 8 weeks).

81 1 Acute Mammalian Oral Imazapyr acid Rat. MRID 132030 ( Acceptable). In an acute oral study, imazapyr acid was determined to have a low toxicity ( Toxicity Category III) to rats with an LD 50 > 5000 mg/ kg. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Rat. MRID 00147049 ( Acceptable). In an acute oral study, imazapyr isopropylamine salt was determined to exhibit no toxicity ( Toxicity Category IV) to rats with an LD 50 of > 5000 mg/ kg (> 4090 mg ae/ kg). The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Rat. MRID 44735301 ( Acceptable). In an acute oral study, imazapyr isopropylamine salt was determined to exhibit no toxicity ( Toxicity Category IV) to rats with an LD 50 of > 5000 mg/ kg (> 4090 mg ae/ kg). The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

83 3 Mammalian Developmental Rat. MRID 00131611 ( Acceptable). In a 2 generation developmental study, imazapyr acid produced maternal toxicity in Sprague Dawley rats at 1000 mg ai/ kg/ day ( LOAEL), based on salivation in the gravid dams between gestation days 8 15. The findings were determined to be treatment related. The NOAEL was 300 mg / kg bw/ day. No treatment related effects were reported for developmental parameters. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Rabbit. MRID 00131613 ( Acceptable). In a 2 generation teratology study, imazapyr acid produced no treatment related effects for maternal or developmental parameters; consequently, the NOAEL for both endpoints was $ 400 mg/ kg bw/ day in New Zealand white rabbits. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

83 4 Mammalian Reproduction E  6 Rat. MRID 41039505 ( Acceptable). In a 2 generation reproduction study, imazapyr acid produced no treatment related effects for maternal or developmental parameters; consequently, the parental systemic, reproductive, and offspring NOAEL was $ 738 mg/ kg bw/ day in males and 933.3 mg/ kg bw/ day in females. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

122 2 Aquatic Plant Nonvascular Imazapyr acid Green algae. MRID 40811802 ( Acceptable). In a Tier II toxicity test with Selenastrum capricornutum, the 7 day EC 50 for cell density was 71 mg ai/ L ( NOEC = 50.9 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets the guideline protocols.

Blue green algae. MRID 40811802 ( Acceptable). In a Tier II toxicity test with Anabaena flosaquae the7 day EC 50 for cell density was 12.2 mg ai/ L ( NOEC = 9.6 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets the guideline protocols.

Marine diatom. MRID 40811802 ( Acceptable). In a Tier II toxicity test with Skeletonema costatum, the7 day EC 50 for cell density was 92 mg ai/ L ( NOEC = 15.9 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets the guideline protocols.

Diatom. MRID 40811802 ( Acceptable). In a Tier II toxicity test with Navicula pelliculosa, the 7 day EC 50 for cell density was > 41 mg ai/ L ( NOEC = 41 mg ai/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets the guideline protocols.

Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Green algae. MRID 43889102 ( Acceptable). In a Tier II toxicity test with green algae, the 7 day EC 50 , based on slight changes in cell shape was 11.5 mg ae/ L ( NOEC = 7.16 mg ae/ L). The study is scientifically sound and meets the guideline protocols.

123 1( a) Seedling Emergence  Tier II Imazapyr Acid Monocots ( 4 species) and Dicots ( 4 species). MRID 40811801 ( Supplemental). In a Tier II seedling emergence study, the most sensitive monocot tested was wheat ( EC 25 0.0046 lb ae/ acre, EC 05 0.00099 lb ae/ acre; shoot weight). The most sensitive dicot tested was sugarbeet ( EC 25 0.0024 lb ae/ acre, EC 05 0.00017 lb ae/ acre; shoot weight). Due to deficiencies in the study, the guideline requirements are only partially fulfilled; acceptable data endpoints were used in the risk assessment.

Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence Toxicity ( Tier II)

Species % ai EC25 ( lbs ai/ A) NOEC / [ EC05] Endpoint Affected MRID No. Study Classification 22.6% 408118 01 Monocot Corn 0.025 0.0156 height invalid2 Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence Toxicity ( Tier II)

Species % ai EC25 ( lbs ai/ A) NOEC / [ EC05] Endpoint Affected MRID No. Study Classification E  7 Monocot Oat 0.054 0.0156 " supplemental3 Monocot Onion 0.034 [ 0.01] A weight4 supplemental3 Monocot Wheat 0.0046 [ 0.00099] A " supplemental3 Dicot Sunflower 0.0027 [ 0.000021] A height invalid2 Dicot Soybean 0.012 0.0078 " invalid2 Dicot Pea 0.093 0.0624 weight4 invalid2 Dicot Cucumber 0.0043 [ 0.000005] A " invalid2 Dicot Sugarbeet 0.0024 [ 0.00017] A " supplemental3 Dicot Tomato 0.008 0.0003 " supplemental3 1Determination of the most sensitive species is based on EC25 values; results are based on the non linear regression analysis. 2 Large seedlings were subjected to overcrowding, 10 seeds were planted in a 4 in dixie cup. 3 Small seedlings could be subjected to overcrowding, 10 seeds were planted in a 4 in dixie cup. 4 Fresh weight was recorded instead of dry weight. A The NOEC value is above the EC25, equal to the EC25, or below the lowest concentration, an EC05 value is used instead. .

123 1( b) Vegetative Vigor  Tier II Imazapyr acid Monocots ( 4 species) and Dicots ( 4 species). MRID 40811801 ( Supplemental). In a Tier II vegetative vigor study, the most sensitive monocot tested was wheat ( EC 25 0.012 lb ae/ acre, NOEC 0.0039 lb ae/ acre; shoot weight). The most sensitive dicot tested was cucumber ( EC 25 0.0009 lb ae/ acre, EC 05 0.000064 lb ae/ acre; shoot height). Due to deficiencies in the study, the guideline requirements are partially fulfilled; acceptable data endpoints were used in the risk assessment.

Species % a. i. EC 25 ( lbs ae/ A) NOEC [ EC05] ( lbs ae/ A) Endpoint affected MRID No. Study classification 22.6% 408118 01 Monocot Corn > 0.0156A 0.0078 weight2 supplemental3 Monocot Oats 0.013 0.0039 height supplemental3 Monocot Onion   n/ aC invalid Monocot Wheat 0.012 0.0039 weight2 supplemental3 Dicot Soybean   n/ aC invalid Dicot Pea   n/ aC invalid Dicot Sugarbeet 0.00097 [ 0.00039] B weight2 supplemental3 Species % a. i. EC 25 ( lbs ae/ A) NOEC [ EC05] ( lbs ae/ A) Endpoint affected MRID No. Study classification E  8 Dicot Sunflower 0.0054 0.0039 weight2 supplemental3 Dicot Cucumber 0.0009 [ 0.000064] B height supplemental3 Dicot Tomato > 0.0156A 0.00097 weight2 supplemental3 1Determination of the most sensitive species is based on EC25 values. 2 Fresh weight was recorded instead of dry weight. 3 the toxicity values could be underestimated since the study was tested with older plants ( 28D) at a less sensitive stage of growth ( timing of application). A The EC25 value is above the highest concentration tested. B The NOEC value is above the EC25, equal to the EC25, or below the lowest concentration, an EC05 value is used instead. C No data Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Monocots ( 3 species) and Dicots ( 2 species). MRID 43889101 ( Core). In a Tier II vegetative vigor study, chlorosis, stunting, and plant death. The most sensitive monocot tested was onion ( EC 25 0.010 lb ae/ acre, NOEC 0.004 lb ae/ acre; shoot weight). The most sensitive dicot tested was sugar beet ( EC 25 0.0016 lb ae/ acre, NOEC 0.0008 lb ae/ acre; shoot weight). The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Monocots ( 4 species) and Dicots ( 4 species). MRID 40003711 ( Supplemental). This study was a modified Tier II vegetative vigor study that did not meet guideline requirements. Only descriptive summary data was presented; consequently effect levels were not determined. Observed effects included chlorosis, stunting, leaf tip burning, necrosis, and plant death.

123 2 Aquatic Plant Vascular Imazapyr acid Duckweed. MRID 40811802 ( Acceptable). In a 14 day toxicity test with duckweed, the EC 50 for frond production was 0.024 mg ai/ L and the NOEC was 0.01 mg ai/ L. Imazapyr is considered highly toxic and expected to exert a detrimental effect on vascular aquatic plants. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.

Imazapyr isopropylamine salt Duckweed. MRID 43889102 ( Acceptable). In a 14 day toxicity test with duckweed, the EC 50 for frond production was 0.018 mg ai/ L and the NOEC was 0.011 mg ai/ L. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols. E  9 141 5 Acute Honey Bee Contact Honey Bee. MRID 00131637 ( Acceptable). In a 48 hour acute contact study with the honey bee, imazapyr acid was determined to be practically non toxic to honey bees and the LD 50 was > 100 µ g/ bee. The study is scientifically sound and meets guideline protocols.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21666-21668]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08470]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69324; File No. SR-EDGX-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

April 5, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 1, 2013, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGX Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add an additional tier, the Growth Tier,
to Footnote 1 of its fee schedule. Such tier would provide Members a
rebate of $0.0025 per share for liquidity added on EDGX if on a daily
basis, measured monthly, they post 5,000,000 shares or more of average
daily volume (``ADV'') to EDGX.
    Secondly, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.0032 per
share for Retail Orders, as defined in Footnote 4 of the Exchange's fee
schedule, that add liquidity to EDGX. The Exchange currently offers a
Retail Order Tier whereby Members are provided a rebate of $0.0034 per
share if they add an ADV of Retail Orders (Flag ZA) that is 0.25% or
more of the Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV'') on a daily basis,
measured monthly. The Exchange proposes to lower the criteria to
satisfy this tier to ``an average daily volume of Retail Orders that is
0.10% or more of the TCV on a daily basis, measured monthly.''
(emphasis added).
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on April 1, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\5\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the addition of the Growth Tier
represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges because it incentivizes Members to add liquidity to the EDGX
Book.\6\ Furthermore, such increased volume would increase potential
revenue to the Exchange and would allow the Exchange to spread its
administrative and infrastructure costs over a greater number of
shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower per share costs
in turn would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to Members in
the form of higher rebates and lower fees. The increased liquidity
benefits all investors by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering
additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection. Volume-based rebates
such as the one proposed to be amended herein have been widely adopted
in the cash equities markets, and are equitable because they are open
to all Members on an equal basis and provide discounts that are
reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders
into the price and volume discovery processes. In addition, the
Exchange also believes that these proposed amendments are non-
discriminatory because they apply uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rebate of $0.0025 per
share for the Growth Tier and volume thresholds that require Members to
add an ADV of 5,000,000 shares or more also represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges since higher
(lower) rebates are directly correlated with more (less) stringent
criteria. As explained in detail below, the proposed Growth Tier rebate
of $0.0025 per share will have the least stringent criteria associated
with it, and Members will receive $0.0003 less per share than the next
best tiered rebates of $0.0028 per share (the Super Tier and an un-
named tier in Footnote 1 of the Exchange's fee schedule in which a
Member must post 0.065% of the TCV in ADV more than their February 2011
ADV added to EDGX).
    In order to qualify for the next best tier after the Growth Tier,
the Super Tier (rebate of $0.0028), a Member must post double the
number of shares (i.e., 10,000,000 shares or more of ADV to EDGX) than
that required to qualify for the Growth Tier.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebate is
reasonable in that it is in line with the BATS Exchange, Inc.'s (``BZX
Exchange'') default rebate of $0.0025 per share for adding displayed
liquidity to the BZX Exchange order book for members that do not
satisfy a volume tier.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS BZX Exchange Fee Schedule,
http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/regulation/rule_book/BATS-Exchanges_Fee_Schedules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that reducing the percentage of TCV required
to achieve the Retail Order Tier from 0.25% to 0.10% for Members'
Retail Orders that add liquidity (Flag ZA) is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it would

continue to encourage Members to send additional Retail Orders that add
liquidity to the Exchange for execution in order to qualify for an
incrementally higher rebate for such executions that add liquidity on
the Exchange if Members satisfy the conditions of the Retail Order
Tier.
    The potential for increased volume from Retail Orders would
increase potential revenue to the Exchange, and allow the Exchange to
spread its administrative and infrastructure costs over a greater
number of shares, leading to lower per share costs. These lower per
share costs in turn would allow the Exchange to pass on the savings to
Members in the form of lower fees. The increased liquidity benefits all
investors by deepening EDGX's liquidity pool, offering additional
flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the
quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving
investor protection. Volume-based rebates such as the one proposed
herein have been widely adopted in the cash equities markets, and are
equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and
provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an
exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction
of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery
processes.
    The Exchange believes that reducing the percentage of TCV required
to achieve the Retail Order Tier from 0.25% to 0.10% for Members'
Retail Orders that add liquidity (Flag ZA) is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because this percentage continues to be
within a range that the Exchange believes would incentivize Members to
submit Retail Orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the
applicable rebate of $0.0034 per share. The Exchange notes that certain
other existing pricing tiers within its fee schedule make rebates
available to Members that are also based on the Member's level of
activity as a percentage of TCV. These existing percentage thresholds,
depending on other related factors and the level of the corresponding
rebates, are both higher and lower than the 0.10% proposed herein.\8\
Moreover, like existing pricing on the Exchange that is tied to
Member's volume levels as a percentage of TCV, the proposed Retail
Order Tier continues to be equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it is available to all Members on an equal and non-
discriminatory basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See for example, the Market Depth Tier Rebate ($0.0033 per
share rebate), Mega Tier rebate ($0.0032 per share), Ultra Tier
rebate ($0.0031 per share rebate), and Super Tier rebate ($0.0031
per share rebate) that are all tied to a percentage of TCV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the orders of
individual investors are executed over-the-counter.\9\ The Exchange
believes that it is thus appropriate to continue to create a financial
incentive to bring more retail order flow to a public market, such as
the Exchange, over off-exchange venues. The Exchange believes that
investor protection and transparency is promoted by rewarding displayed
liquidity on exchanges over off-exchange executions. In this regard,
the Exchange believes that maintaining or increasing the proportion of
Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a
registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain
available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to
investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would
benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool,
supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market
transparency and improving investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (noting that dark pools and internalizing broker-
dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share volume in September
2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market
Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010)
(available on the Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman
Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed
equities was executed in venues that do not display their liquidity
or make it generally available to the public and the percentage was
increasing nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that the Retail Order Tier is reasonable in
that NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') offers a comparable Retail Order
Tier (with an analogous Retail Order definition) that provides a rebate
of $0.0033 per share for its Retail Orders that provide liquidity on
NYSE Arca in Tapes A, B and C securities for ETP Holders that execute
an ADV of Retail Orders that is 0.20% or more of the TCV.\10\ In
addition, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') offers its members a
rebate of $0.0034 per share for Designated Retail Orders, as defined by
Nasdaq, that are displayed orders that provide liquidity if a member
enters Designated Retail Orders through an MPID through which (i) at
least 90% of the shares of liquidity provided during the month are
provided through Designated Retail Orders, and (ii) the members access,
provide, or route shares of liquidity that represent at least 0.10% of
TCV during the month.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69134 (March 14,
2013), 78 FR 17247 (March 20, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-24). See also,
NYSE Arca Equities, Inc., Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange
Services, https://usequities.nyx.com/sites/usequities.nyx.com/files/nyse_arca_marketplace_fees_3_1_13.pdf.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 69133 (March 14, 2013),
78 FR 17272 (March 20, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-42). Nasdaq, Price
List--Trading and Connectivity, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe these changes represent a
significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or
pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members
may opt to disfavor EDGX's pricing if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. Accordingly, EDGX does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    Regarding the Retail Order Tier, the Exchange believes that its
proposal to amend the criteria to achieve the tier will increase
competition for Retail Orders because the proposed Retail Order Tier is
comparable in price and criteria to Nasdaq's retail order tier. The
Exchange believes its proposal will not burden intramarket competition
given that the Exchange's rates apply uniformly to all Members.
    Regarding the Exchange's proposed Growth Tier, the Exchange
believes its proposal will not burden competition but rather increase
competition with the Exchange's competitors that offer similar tiers
and rebates. The Exchange believes its proposal will not burden

intramarket competition given that the Exchange's rates apply uniformly
to all Members.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2013-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2013-12 and should be
submitted on or before May 2, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08470 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 47842-47844]
[DOCID:fr17se09-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60644; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Initial Listing
Fees for Operating Companies

September 10, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 26, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its schedule of initial listing fees
for operating companies as set forth in Section 902.03 of the Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual''). A copy of this filing is available on
the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's
principal office and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its initial listing fees for
operating companies set forth in Section 902.03 of the Manual, with
retroactive application to any initial listing of new classes of
securities on or after the date of original submission of this filing.
    Currently, companies pay initial listing fees according to the
following schedule: $0.0048 per share for up to and including 75
million shares, $0.00375 per share for any additional shares over 75
million shares up to and including 300 million shares, and $0.0019 per
share for any additional shares over 300 million shares (the ``Listing
Fee Schedule''). The first time that an issuer lists a class of common
shares, the issuer is also subject to a one-time special charge of
$37,500, in addition to fees calculated according to the Listing Fee
Schedule. The minimum and maximum listing fees applicable the first
time an issuer lists a class of common shares are $150,000 and
$250,000, respectively, which amounts include the one-time special
charge of $37,500.
    Solely with respect to shares listed at the time a class of common
shares is first listed on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to
replace the Listing Fee Schedule with a flat rate initial listing fee
of $0.0032 per share.\4\ The one-time special charge of $37,500 will be
increased to $50,000 and the minimum initial listing fee will be
decreased from $150,000 to $125,000.\5\ No change is being made to the
maximum initial listing fee of $250,000 at this time. The existing
Listing Fee Schedule (the ``Listing of Additional Shares Fee
Schedule'') will remain in effect for the listing of additional shares
of a class of previously listed securities. In establishing at which
tier of the Listing of Additional Shares Fee Schedule a company will
pay fees with respect to additional shares of a previously listed
class, the Exchange will include the shares with respect to which the
company paid fees at the time of initial listing of that class in
calculating the fees for additional shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Initial listing fees for the following types of listings
will also be charged at a rate of $0.0032 per share: (i) At the time
it first lists, an issuer lists one or more classes of preferred
stock or warrants, whether or not common shares are also listed at
that time; and (ii) once listed, an issuer lists a new class of
preferred stock or warrants.
    \5\ The increase in the one-time special charge is intended to
offset a portion of the reduction in listing fee revenue
attributable to the proposed lower listing fee per share and
proposed lower minimum listing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example: At the time Company A first lists its common stock on
the Exchange, its initial listing application covers 30 million shares
of its common stock. Company A must pay initial listing fees of
$146,000, i.e., the one-time special charge of $50,000 plus $96,000 (30
million shares multiplied by $0.0032 per share). For comparison, the
following is how Company A would be charged for the initial listing
application under the current Listing Fee Schedule: $181,500, i.e., the
one-time special charge of $37,500 plus $144,000 (30 million shares
multiplied by $0.0048 per share).
    If Company A subsequently issues an additional 100 million shares,
Company A will pay fees under the first tier of the Listing of
Additional Shares Fee Schedule for 45 million shares (representing the
75 million shares that are subject to the first tier of fees minus the
30 million shares issued at the time of original listing) and will pay
fees under the second tier of the Listing of Additional Shares Fee
Schedule for 55 million shares (representing the remainder of the
shares listed in the supplemental listing application). Therefore, in
connection with the supplemental listing application, Company A must
pay listing fees for the listing of additional shares of $422,250,
consisting of (i) $216,000 (i.e., 45 million shares multiplied by
$0.0048 per share) plus (ii) $206,250 (i.e., 55 million shares
multiplied by $0.00375 per share).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The charge for the supplemental listing application would be
the same under both the existing and the proposed listing fee
schedule. Some clarifying changes have been made to the Listing of
Additional Shares Fee Schedule as presented in Section 902.03, but
no substantive changes are being made to the fees charged in
connection with the listing of additional shares pursuant to a
supplemental listing application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the Exchange's initial listing fees will
reduce the initial listing fees payable by all companies whose fees are
not limited by the $250,000 maximum and no company will pay higher
initial listing fees as a result of the proposed amendment. These lower
initial listing fees will enable the Exchange to compete more
effectively on a cost basis with other securities exchanges for
listings of companies undertaking initial public offerings. In
particular, the Exchange notes that smaller companies than have
historically listed on the Exchange now qualify for listing under the
recently adopted Assets and Equity Test \7\ and many of these companies
would benefit from the lower minimum initial listing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58934 (November 12,
2008), 73 FR 69708 (November 19, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new initial listing fees for the listing of new
classes of securities are not inequitable or unfairly discriminatory,
as all companies will be subject to the same fee schedule. While
companies that are subject to the $250,000 maximum fee under both the
current and the proposed fee schedule do not benefit from the reduction
in fees, this is appropriate because these companies already benefit
from a lower effective listing fee per share than other companies.
    The Exchange proposes to apply the listing fees as amended by this
filing retroactively to any new classes of common or preferred equity
securities listed on or after the date of original submission of this
filing. The Exchange believes this approach is appropriate, as it will
enable companies to benefit from any applicable reduction in listing
fees without having to delay their listing until after Commission
approval of the filing solely for the purpose of benefitting from that
fee reduction. As noted above, the proposed amendment will lower the
initial listing fees payable by all companies whose fees are not
limited by the $250,000 maximum and no company will pay higher initial
listing fees as a result of the proposed amendment.
    The reduction in the Exchange's listing fee revenue as a result of
the proposed rule change is not expected to be substantial and the
Exchange will continue to have sufficient revenue to continue to
adequately fund its regulatory activities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The bases under the Act for this proposed rule change are the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \8\ that an exchange have rules that
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members, listed companies and other persons using its
facilities and the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \9\ that an
exchange have rules that are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The
Exchange believes that the proposed new schedule of initial listing
fees represents an equitable allocation of fees

among its listed companies, as all companies will be subject to the
same fee schedule. The proposed new initial listing fees for the
listing of new classes of securities are not inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory, as all companies will be subject to the same fee
schedule. While companies that are subject to the $250,000 maximum fee
under both the current and the proposed fee schedule do not benefit
from the reduction in fees, this is appropriate because these companies
already benefit from a lower effective listing fee per share than other
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 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 solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-NYSE-2009-83 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-83. 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 will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-83 and should be
submitted on or before October 8, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22368 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 52 (Monday, March 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 14374]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4287-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Kansas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4287-DR), dated October 20, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L.
Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Kathy D. Fields as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-05457 Filed 3-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13991-13992]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14812-000]

Watterra Energy, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On January 3, 2017, Watterra Energy, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Brookville Lake Dam
Hydroelectric Project (Brookville Project or project) to be located at
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Brookville Lake Dam on the
East Fork of Whitewater River in Franklin County, Indiana. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following all new
facilities: (1) A 9-foot-diameter, 845-foot-long steel penstock that
bifurcates into one 9-foot-

diameter, 220-foot-long steel penstock discharging into an existing
stilling basin and one 9-foot-diameter, 240-foot-long steel penstock
carrying flows to the project's powerhouse; (2) a bifurcation structure
located at the end of the 845-foot-long penstock; (3) a 70-foot-long,
55-foot-wide, 30-foot-high powerhouse located on the west side of the
stilling basin; (4) two horizontal Francis turbines each with an
installed capacity of 2.2 megawatts (MW) for a total capacity of 4.4
MW; (5) a single generator connected to the two Francis turbines; (6) a
70-foot-long, 50-foot-wide switchyard located adjacent to the
powerhouse; (7) a 6.8-foot-long, 12.7-kilovolt transmission line
interconnecting to an existing distribution system using an existing
substation; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the Brookville Project would be 23,250 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Craig Dalton, 7100 Commercial Avenue, Suite
4, Billings, MT 59101; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: (406)
384-0080.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-6211.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications 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 (202) 502-
8659 (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-14812-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14812) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 8, 2017.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05205 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67191-67193]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 435

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0598; FRL-9953-26-OW]
RIN 2040-AF68

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category--Implementation Date Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to extend the implementation deadline for certain
facilities subject to the final rule establishing pretreatment
standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for discharges of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) from onshore unconventional
oil and gas (UOG) extraction facilities (81 FR 41845; June 28, 2016).
EPA is making this revision in response to new information suggesting
that there are likely facilities subject to the final rule not
presently meeting the zero discharge requirements in the final rule.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 29, 2016 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 31,
2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct
final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-HQ-
OW-2016-0598], at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information, see EPA's Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oil-and-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines. For technical information, contact Karen Milam,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Office of Water,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially regulated by this final action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                North American Industry
                    Category                           Example of regulated entity        Classification System
                                                                                (NAICS) code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................................  Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas                          211111
                                                  Extraction.
Industry.......................................  Natural Gas Liquid Extraction.........                   211112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why is EPA issuing a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. This direct final rule merely extends the
implementation deadline for existing onshore UOG extraction facilities
that were discharging to POTWs on or between the date of the Federal
Register Notice

of the proposed rule (April 7, 2015) and the date of the Federal
Register Notice of the final rule (June 28, 2016) to the default three
year period provided in the General Pretreatment Regulations. This
direct final rule does not otherwise amend the final pretreatment
standards rule in any way. In the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, however, we are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposed rule to extend the implementation date if we
receive adverse comments on this direct final rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this direct final rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

III. Supplementary Information

A. Background

    EPA promulgated revisions to Effluent Guidelines and Standards for
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category which established
pretreatment standards for onshore unconventional oil and gas
extraction facilities (81 FR 41845, June 28, 2016). In this final rule,
EPA established pretreatment standards prohibiting the discharge of
pollutants in UOG extraction wastewater to POTWs, and established an
effective date of August 29, 2016. In the preamble to the final rule,
EPA indicated that because UOG facilities were currently meeting this
zero discharge requirement, the implementation deadline for these
pretreatment standards would be the same as the effective date of the
final rule. After promulgation of the final rule, EPA received two
letters indicating that there are likely facilities discharging UOG
wastewater to POTWs; this is new information to EPA.

B. Description of EPA's Action

    Based on this post-promulgation information submitted to EPA
suggesting that there are likely facilities subject to the final
pretreatment standards rule that are currently discharging UOG
wastewater to POTWs, EPA is extending the implementation deadline for
existing sources that were lawfully discharging to POTWs on or between
April 7, 2015 and June 28, 2016 to three years from the effective date
of the rule--to August 29th, 2019. This direct final rule does not
change the compliance date for all other facilities subject to the
final onshore UOG extraction pretreatment standards rule. The final
pretreatment standards did not specify a compliance date in the
regulatory text; rather, EPA included a compliance date equal to the
effective date of the rule in the preamble to the rule, based on the
Agency's record indicating that no facilities were discharging UOG
wastewater to POTWs. Because of post-promulgation information
indicating that some facilities are likely discharging UOG wastewater
to POTWs, EPA is extending the compliance date for these facilities.
EPA notes that specifying a compliance date of three years from the
effective date of the final pretreatment standards rule is consistent
with EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations, which require existing
sources to meet categorical pretreatment standards within three years
of the effective date of such standards, unless a shorter compliance
time is specified therein. 40 CFR 403.6(b). For purposes of this direct
final rule, compliance date and implementation date are used
interchangeably.
    EPA will not consider any comment submitted on the direct final
rule published today on any topic other than the appropriateness of an
extension of the compliance date; any other comments will be considered
to be outside the scope of this rulemaking.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. With respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.), this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities--as this direct final
relieves regulatory burden by extending the compliance date for any
business (including small businesses) that were discharging UOG
wastewater to POTWs at the time of issuance of the pretreatment
standard. For the Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4), this action does not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no incremental
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. This action does not create new binding legal
requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does
not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action
does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 435

    Environmental protection, Pretreatment, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control, Unconventional oil and gas
extraction.

    Dated: September 22, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 435 is amended as follows:

PART 435--OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

0
1. The authority citation for part 435 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342
and 1361.

Subpart C--Onshore Subcategory

0
2. Add paragraph (a)(3) to Sec.  435.33 to read as follows:

Sec.  435.33  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) * * *

    (3) Compliance deadline for existing sources. Existing sources
lawfully discharging into publicly owned treatment works on or between
April 7, 2015 and June 28, 2016 shall comply with the PSES by August
29, 2019. All other existing sources shall comply by August 29, 2016.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-23456 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37145-37147]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0015]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Horsepower on the Hudson, Hudson River,
Castleton-on-Hudson, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on
certain waters of the Hudson River near Castleton-on-Hudson, NY, in
support of the Horsepower on the Hudson event, reoccurring annually one
day in August. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of
participants, spectators, and mariners transiting the area from the
dangers associated with vessels operating at high speeds during the
Horsepower on the Hudson event. This final rule will allow the Coast
Guard to enforce vessel movements within two regulated areas in a
portion of the Hudson River near Castleton-on-Hudson, NY.

DATES: This rule is effective July 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0015 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port New York
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On March 17, 2023, the Coast Guard published the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to establish a permanent Special Local Regulation for the
Horsepower on the Hudson event (88 FR 16386). There we stated why we
issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to this high-speed boating event. No comments were received
during the comment period, which ended April 17, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041. The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) has determined that to
ensure the safety of participants, vessels, and the navigable waters in
the vicinity of the high-speed area and the spectator area before,
during, and after the event. The purpose of this rule is to protect all
waterway users, including event participants and spectators.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, no comments were received on the NPRM published
March 17, 2023. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this
rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a permanent special local regulation to be
enforced annually on one day in August. The special local regulation
establishes a high-speed area and a spectator zone on the navigable
waters of the Hudson River in the vicinity of Castleton-on-Hudson, NY.
With this special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to allow
marine traffic to transit via the main navigable channel. The duration
of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the
scheduled event.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
With this special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to allow
marine traffic to transit via the main navigable channel. In addition,
although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the
local regulation, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because local waterway users will be notified in advance via public
Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This is to ensure the special local
regulation will result in minimum impact as the main navigation channel
will be maintained, allowing vessels to transit Hudson River outside of
the high-speed area or the spectator area. Mariners will therefore be
able to plan and either transit through the available transit area or
outside the periods of enforcement of the special local regulation.
Additionally, mariners may be able to transit the high-speed area or
spectator areas with approval from the COTP or designated
representative. The entities most likely affected are commercial
vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

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
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 a
regulated area lasting 6 hours that would limit persons or vessels from
transiting certain regulated areas during the scheduled event. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.111 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.111  Special Local Regulation; Horsepower on the Hudson,
Hudson River, Castleton-on-Hudson, NY.

    (a) Regulated areas. The regulations in this section apply to the
following regulated areas: (1) High speed area. All navigable waters of
the Hudson River from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202 (LLNR 38905) to
Hudson River Lighted Buoy 204 (LLNR 38910) east of the navigable
channel shoreward outside of the navigational channel.
    (2) Spectator area. All navigable waters of the Hudson River from
Hudson River Lighted Buoy 201 (LLNR 38903) to Hudson River Lighted Buoy
205 (LLNR 38915) west of the navigable channel shoreward outside of the
navigational channel.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Designated Representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer
operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port New York (COTP) in
the enforcement of the Special Local Regulation.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as a participant in the event.
    Spectator means any person or vessel including human-powered craft,
which is not designated by the sponsor as a support vessel, in the
vicinity of the event with the primary purpose of witnessing the event.
Spectator vessels can observe the marine event from the designated
spectator area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated areas described in paragraph (a) of this
section unless authorized by the COTP or their designated
representative.
    (2) No participant may transit at high-speed inside the high-speed
zone when vessels are in or transiting through the navigational
channel.
    (d) Enforcement period. This special local regulation is in effect
annually on a date and time published in the Local Notice to Mariners.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the enforcement period for the regulated area as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: June 1, 2023.
Z. Merchant,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2023-12171 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P