[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 2489]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00502]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0108]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on
December 23, 2019, representatives of the Florida, Gulf & Atlantic
Railroad LLC (FGA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0108.
    Applicant: Florida, Gulf & Atlantic Railroad LLC, Mr. Thomas G.
Healey, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800,
Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
    Specifically, FGA requests permission to discontinue its existing
centralized traffic control system (TCS) on ``the Line'', which is the
only portion of the FGA that has TCS installed. The Line (148.7 miles)
originates at the connection with CSX Transportation (CSXT) milepost
(MP) SP 653.3 at Baldwin, Florida, and terminates in connections with
FGA's remaining rail system MP SP 802.0 at Tallahassee, Florida.
    Upon discontinuance of the TCS, operations will be governed by
track warrant control (TWC) which is currently the system of operations
on the remainder of FGA's rail system.
    The stated reason for the discontinuance is that TWC, in lieu of
TCS, will substantially reduce operating costs, allow for investment in
critical capital projects, and not reduce the overall safety of
operations.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 2, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-00502 Filed 1-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53691-53692]
[DOCID:fr01se10-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0615; FRL-8839-1]

Pesticide Products; Registration Applications for a New Active
Ingredient Chemical Sedaxane

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing an active ingredient not included in any previously
registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0615, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0615. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Garvie, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA received applications to register pesticide products containing
an active ingredient not included in any previously registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of
FIFRA, EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on this application. Notice of receipt of these applications
does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
    1. File symbol: 100-RGIR. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Product name: Sedaxane
Technical. Active ingredient: Sedaxane at 98%. Proposal classification/
Use: Fungicide for formulation into end use products.
    2. File symbol: 100-RGIE. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Product name: A16874F.
Active ingredients: Sedaxane, difenoconazole, and mefenoxam at 1.22%,
5.86% and 1.46% respectively. Proposal classification/Use: Fungicide/
seed treatment for protection against certain diseases of barley, oats,
rye, triticale, and wheat.
    3. File symbol: 100-RGIG. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Product name: A17511B.
Active ingredients: Sedaxane, difenoconazole, mefenoxam, and
thiamethoxam at .72%, 3.34%, .86% and 2.78% respectively. Proposal
classification/Use: Fungicide/seed treatment for protection against
damage from certain insects and diseases of cereals.
    4. File symbol: 100-RGTU. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Product name: Sedaxane
500 FS. Active ingredient: Sedaxane at 45.45%. Proposal classification/
Use: Fungicide/seed treatment for protection against certain diseases
of barley, canola, oats, rye, soybean, triticale, and wheat.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: August 20, 2010.
 Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-21542 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 47821-47822]
[DOCID:fr09au10-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee

of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to
the public.
    Name of Committee: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on September 15 and 16,
2010, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The Marriott Inn and Conference Center, University of
Maryland University College (UMUC), 3501 University Blvd. East,
Adelphi, MD. The hotel telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Paul Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 31, rm.
2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512536. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On September 15, 2010, the committee will discuss the
results of the Sibutramine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (SCOUT) (M01-
392), for new drug application (NDA) 20-632, MERIDIA (sibutramine
hydrochloride monohydrate) Capsules, sponsored by Abbott Laboratories,
for treatment of obesity. The SCOUT study was a randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial, which is a kind of clinical trial
designed to provide data with strong measures of accuracy and
reliability. The SCOUT trial evaluated the potential benefits of weight
loss with MERIDIA on major cardiovascular (heart and blood circulation)
adverse events. The preliminary results of the SCOUT trial indicated
that clinical trial participants who received MERIDIA instead of
placebo (no active drug) had a higher incidence of major cardiovascular
adverse events that was statistically significant.
    On September 16, 2010, the committee will discuss the safety and
efficacy of new drug application (NDA) 22-529, with the proposed trade
name LORQESS (lorcaserin hydrochloride) Tablets, sponsored by Arena
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as an adjunct to diet and exercise for weight
management in patients with a body mass index (BMI) of equal to or
greater than 30 kilograms (kg) per square meter, or a BMI equal to or
greater than 27 kg per square meter if accompanied by weight-related
co-morbidities (which include, for example: High blood pressure, heart
disease, or diabetes). The BMI is a measure of body weight (mass) based
on a person's weight and height, and is a widely-used tool for doctors
in assessing optimum weights for a patient.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
August 31, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on both days. Those desiring to
make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before August 23, 2010. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by August 24, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Paul Tran at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 3, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-19484 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: September 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 51681-51684]
[DOCID:fr04se08-74]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58431; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(x) To
Clarify the Permissible Order Entry Time and Eligibility of Its Primary
Only Order and Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3 To Establish
Procedures Designed To Manage Potential Informational Advantages
Resulting From the Affiliation Between the Exchange and Archipelago
Securities L.L.C.

August 27, 2008.
    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 20, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') through its wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities'' or the ``Corporation''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``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 (i) amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(x)
in order to clarify the permissible order entry time and eligibility of
its Primary Only Order (``PO Order'') and (ii) amend NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 14.3 in order to establish procedures designed to manage potential
informational advantages resulting from the affiliation between the
Exchange and Archipelago Securities L.L.C. ((i) and (ii) together, the
``Proposed Rule Change''). The text of the proposed rule change 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
    On February 13, 2008, NYSE Arca filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(x) (the ``PO
Plus Proposal'').\4\ NYSE Arca filed that rule change as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
\5\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \6\ thereunder, which rendered it
effective upon filing with the Commission. On April 11, 2008, the
Commission issued an order abrogating the PO Plus Proposal (the
``Abrogation Order'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57377 (Feb. 25,
2008), 73 FR 11177 (February 29, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-19).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(3)(A).
    \6\ 7 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57648 (April 11,
2008), 73 FR 20981 (April 17, 2008) (order abrogating NYSE Arca Rule
7.31(x)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Abrogation Order, the Commission noted its concern regarding
(i) the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a member
firm is affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing orders and
(ii) the potential for informational advantages that could place an
affiliated member of an exchange at a competitive advantage vis-
[agrave]-vis other non-affiliated members.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca is submitting the Proposed Rule Change to re-propose the
PO Plus Order and to propose a new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3(e). The
Proposed Rule Change is intended to provide additional flexibility and
increased system functionality for NYSE Arca Users \9\ by modifying the
operability and eligibility of PO Orders, and to address the issues
noted by the Commission in the Abrogation Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(yy) for the definition of
``User.'' Under Rule 1.1(yy), the term User means any ETP Holder or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the NYSE
Marketplace pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29. PO Orders,
similar to all other order types offered by the Exchange, are
available only to authorized Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. The PO Plus Order
    The PO Order is a market or limit order that is routed to the
primary, listing market, without sweeping the NYSE Arca book.\10\ PO
Orders are thus a form of directed order, an order type that is
commonly used by exchange members and offered by exchanges and other
market centers to enable firms to discharge their obligations under
Regulation NMS and other rules.\11\ This is an order functionality
offered by the Exchange to its Users. NYSE Arca Users

submit the PO Order to NYSE Arca. In turn, NYSE Arca passes the PO
Order to Archipelago Securities L.L.C. (``Arca Securities''), its
outbound order routing facility. Arca Securities routes the PO Order to
the primary, listing market. It is important to note that Arca
Securities accepts orders only from the Exchange (in this case NYSE
Arca), which in turn only accepts orders from authorized NYSE Arca
Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(x).
    \11\ The Exchange believes that the proposed functionality is
substantially similar to the ``Directed Order'' type currently
offered by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), which allows
Nasdaq members to enter orders to be routed to a user-designated
market center other than Nasdaq, without first interacting with the
Nasdaq order book. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55405
(March 6, 2007), 72 FR 11069 (March 12, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users may enter PO Orders until a cut-off time established from
time to time by the Exchange. Currently, the Exchange restricts PO
Orders to participation in the primary, listing market opening. In an
effort to enhance order execution opportunities for its Users, the
Exchange proposes to modify the PO Order type so that PO Orders may be
entered at any time and to offer an order modifier for Users to
designate PO Orders that are eligible for entry and execution
throughout the trading day.
    Under the Proposed Rule Change, a PO Order may be entered at any
time \12\ and will be immediately routed to the primary, listing market
for execution. If the order is not immediate-or-cancel, the order is
not returned to the NYSE Arca book; rather it remains at the venue to
which it is routed, until executed or cancelled that day. In instances
where a symbol is halted, the PO Order will remain at the primary,
listing market until it is cancelled or the symbol is re-opened. PO
Orders eligible for participation in the primary, listing market's
opening must be entered before 6:28 a.m. (Pacific Time). A PO Order
entered for participation in the primary, listing market re-opening
after a trading halt must be entered after trading was halted and
before the Re-Opening Time. Otherwise, PO Orders eligible for
participation in the primary, listing market at all other times must be
marked with the modifier ``PO+''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Users would be able to enter PO Orders into the system for
execution during any of the Exchange's trading sessions (Opening,
Core and Late Sessions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the PO Order type will provide additional
flexibility and functionality to the Exchange's system and its Users
that wish to use the system to comply with their obligations to avoid
trading through any Protected Quotation within the meaning of Rule
600(b)(58) of Regulation NMS.\13\ PO Orders may be designated as
intermarket sweep orders thereby permitting the executing party to
execute at the primary, listing market without checking away market
centers for any protected bid or offer (as defined in Rule 600(b) of
Regulation NMS under the Act). Of course, a broker-dealer that
designates an order as an intermarket sweep order has the
responsibility of complying with Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Order Routing and Existing NYSE Arca Rules
    In its Order approving the merger of the Archipelago Exchange
(``ArcaEx'') with the Pacific Exchange (the ``PCX''),\14\ the
Commission permitted ArcaEx's holding company, Archipelago Holdings,
Inc. (``Archipelago''), to own and operate Arca Securities, in its
capacity as a facility of the PCX that routes orders from ArcaEx to
other market centers.\15\ The Exchange believes that this approval
remains in effect insofar as Arca Securities acts in the capacity of a
facility of NYSE Arca for the routing of orders from NYSE Arca to other
market centers, subject to the applicable conditions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Following the ArcaEx-PCX merger, Archipelago merged with
the NYSE and the PCX was later renamed NYSE Arca.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September
22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (order approving SR-PCX-
2005-90). The Commission's approval was subject to several
conditions and undertakings, specifically that: (1) Arca Securities
would continue to operate and be regulated as a facility of the PCX,
(2) the scope of the exception would be limited to outbound routing,
(3) the primary regulatory responsibility for Arca Securities would
lie with an unaffiliated SRO and (4) the continued use of Arca
Securities for outbound routing would remain optional for other PCX
members. With respect to routing of PO Orders by Arca Securities,
NYSE Arca believes that these conditions and undertakings continue
to be fulfilled.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Order granting this approval, the Commission also recognized
the distinction between Arca Securities' role as a broker-dealer
performing the DOT function and Arca's role as an Exchange facility in
connection with outbound routing:

    Archipelago Securities also provides the DOT function in
addition to its Outbound Router function * * * PCX requests * * * an
exception for Archipelago Securities to permit Archipelago to
continue to own all of its ownership interest in and operate the DOT
function of Archipelago Securities on a pilot basis until the
earlier of (1) a period of 60 days following the closing of the
Merger, and (2) the closing date of the proposed merger of
Archipelago and the NYSE * * * (Emphasis added.) \17\

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, although Arca Securities was required to discontinue
its operation of the DOT function in connection with the Archipelago/
New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') merger, no restrictions other than
those previously described above were requested or imposed by the
Commission with respect to Arca Securities' continuing role as an
outbound router for the Exchange. Accordingly, NYSE Arca does not
believe that outbound routing of PO Orders by Arca Securities to the
NYSE, as an approved facility of the Exchange, is inconsistent with
existing NYSE Arca rules.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes of routing in general and this proposal in
particular, the Exchange believes that there is no functional
difference between routing orders that previously scraped the NYSE
Arca book and routing the PO Order, which does not. Each type of
order is subject to the same principles governing the Exchange's
authority to route orders to away market centers, namely: Use of
Arca Securities for outbound routing is optional for NYSE Arca
Users, the primary regulatory responsibility for Arca Securities
lies with an unaffiliated SRO, and, as clarified herein, appropriate
procedures are in place to manage any potential conflicts of
interest or potential information advantages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arca Securities performs a similar outbound routing function on
behalf of the NYSE. On April 5, 2007, in a notice of immediate
effectiveness, the Commission published the NYSE's rule change that
established Arca Securities as a facility of the NYSE for purposes of
routing orders to away market centers for execution in compliance with
NYSE Rules and Regulation NMS.\19\ Pursuant to NYSE Rule 17, Arca
Securities receives its routing instructions from the NYSE and reports
any such executions back to the NYSE.\20\ Arca Securities has no
discretion and cannot change the terms of an order or the routing
instructions.\21\ Moreover, each type of order is subject to the same
principles governing the NYSE's authority to route orders to away
market centers, namely: Use of Arca Securities for outbound routing is
only available to--and is optional for--NYSE Members, the primary
regulatory responsibility for Arca Securities lies with an unaffiliated
SRO, and, as clarified herein, appropriate procedures are in place to
manage any conflicts of interest or potential information advantages.
In this capacity as a facility of the NYSE, Arca Securities receives
the routing instructions from the NYSE and routes the orders to various
away market centers, including NYSE Arca, for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590 (April 5,
2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (notice of immediate
effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2007-29).
    \20\ See NYSE Rule 17(b)(1).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Record Keeping
    As mentioned above, in the Abrogation Order, the Commission noted
the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a member
firm is affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing orders.

    In order to manage these concerns, with respect to orders routed to
NYSE Arca by Arca Securities in its capacity as a facility of the NYSE,
the Exchange notes that Arca Securities is subject to independent
oversight and enforcement by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA''), an unaffiliated self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') that is Arca Securities' designated examining authority. In
this capacity, FINRA is responsible for examining Arca Securities with
respect to its books and records and capital obligations, and shares
with NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation'') the responsibility for
reviewing Arca Securities' compliance with intermarket trading rules
such as SEC Regulation NMS. In addition, through an agreement between
FINRA and NYSE Arca pursuant to the provisions of Rule 17d-2 under the
Act,\22\ FINRA's staff reviews for Arca Securities' compliance with
other NYSE Arca rules through FINRA's examination program. NYSE
Regulation monitors Arca Securities for compliance with NYSE Arca
trading rules, subject, of course, to SEC oversight of NYSE
Regulation's regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to alleviate any residual concerns the Commission may have
regarding the potential for conflicts of interest, the Exchange notes
that NYSE Regulation has agreed with the Exchange that it will collect
and maintain the following information of which NYSE Regulation staff
becomes aware--namely, all alerts, complaints, investigations and
enforcement actions where Arca Securities (in its capacity as a
facility of the NYSE, routing orders to NYSE Arca) is identified as a
participant that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or applicable SEC
rules--in an easily accessible manner, so as to facilitate any review
conducted by the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and
Examinations. NYSE Regulation has further agreed with the Exchange that
it will provide a report to the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer, on
at least a quarterly basis, which: (i) Quantifies all alerts (of which
NYSE Regulation is aware) that identify Arca Securities as a
participant that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or SEC rules and
(ii) quantifies the number of all investigations that identify Arca
Securities as a participant that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or
SEC rules.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange, NYSE Regulation, and SEC staff, may agree
going forward to reduce the number of applicable or relevant
surveillances that form the scope of the agreed upon report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. New Policies and Procedures
    Finally, in the Abrogation Order, the Commission noted the
potential for informational advantages that could place an affiliated
member of an exchange at a competitive advantage vis-[agrave]-vis other
non-affiliated members.
    In response to this concern, with respect to Arca Securities being
an affiliated member of NYSE Arca, the Exchange is proposing to add new
Rule 14.3(e). New Rule 14.3(e) will require the implementation of
policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent Arca
Securities from acting on non-public information regarding NYSE Arca
systems prior to the time that such information is made available
generally to all NYSE Arca members performing inbound routing
functions. These policies and procedures would include systems
development protocols to facilitate an audit of the efficacy of these
policies and procedures.
    Specifically, new Rule 14.3(e) shall provide as follows:

    The holding company owning both the Exchange and Archipelago
Securities, L.L.C. shall establish and maintain procedures and
internal controls reasonably designed to ensure that Archipelago
Securities, L.L.C. does not develop or implement changes to its
system on the basis of non-public information regarding planned
changes to Exchange systems, obtained as a result of its affiliation
with the Exchange until such information is available generally to
similarly situated members of the Exchange in connection with the
provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange.

    The Exchange believes these measures will effectively address the
concerns identified by the Commission regarding the potential for
informational advantages favoring Arca Securities vis-[agrave]-vis
other non-affiliated NYSE Arca members.
e. Pilot Period
    The Exchange proposes that the Commission authorize NYSE Arca to
receive inbound routes from Arca Securities (in its capacity as a
facility of NYSE, routing orders to NYSE Arca) for a pilot period of
twelve months from the date of the approval of this rule filing. The
Exchange believes that this pilot period is of sufficient length to
permit both the Exchange and the Commission to assess the impact of the
rule change described herein.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \24\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\25\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 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-NYSEArca-2008-90 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-90. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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-NYSEArca-2008-90 and should
be submitted on or before September 25, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\

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

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-20467 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28357-28361]
[DOCID:fr16my08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 153

[Docket ID FEMA-2005-0001; Legacy ID DHS-2005-0006]
RIN 1660-AA34

Assistance Program Under the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 directed the United States
Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp and distribute the proceeds
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the families
of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled while
serving in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks
against the United States on September 11, 2001. In response, FEMA
issued interim regulations that governed the distribution of those
funds. Now that all funds have been distributed and all appeals
resolved, FEMA is issuing this Final rule to remove the interim
regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jotham Allen, Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
500 C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (phone) 202-

646-1957, (facsimile)<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001, Public Law 107-67, sec. 652, 115
Stat. 557 (Nov. 12, 2001) (Heroes Stamp Act), directed the United
States Postal Service (USPS) to issue a semipostal stamp and distribute
the proceeds through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
the families of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently
disabled while serving in the line of duty in connection with the
terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
    A semipostal stamp is a type of postage that is sold for a value
greater than that of a regular first class stamp. The proceeds from the
price differential between the sale price of the stamp and the cost of
the postage fund the distribution, minus the USPS' cost to produce and
distribute the stamps. No administrative costs were deducted by FEMA.
The USPS issued the Heroes semipostal stamp in June 2002, and stopped
selling it on December 31, 2004. The sum of $10,565,073.61 was provided
to FEMA by USPS from stamp sales during that time period.
    On July 26, 2005, FEMA published an interim rule at 70 FR 43214
establishing a program to distribute the funds raised from the sale of
the Heroes semipostal stamp. Under the program, eligible claimants were
those emergency relief personnel acting in their official capacity who
were permanently physically disabled, or the families of such personnel
who were killed in the line of duty while serving at the World Trade
Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA site in connection with the
terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. In
determining whether a claimant had a permanent physical disability,
FEMA relied on determinations made by appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies, as well as appropriate private entities.
    The interim rule also created an appeals process. This process
allowed an applicant to appeal a determination made by FEMA that the
applicant was not eligible. The applicant was required to submit a
notice of intent to appeal within 15 calendar days of the issuance of
FEMA's determination of eligibility. The written appeal could not
exceed 15 pages, exclusive of supporting documentation, and had to be
submitted within 60 calendar days of the issuance of FEMA's
determination of eligibility. New documentation was accepted on appeal.
Appeals determinations were made by the Appeals Specialist in FEMA's
Office of Dispute Resolution.
    The amount of assistance granted under the Heroes Stamp Act was
within FEMA's discretion. The interim final rule established that FEMA
would, to the extent possible, distribute the funds equally among all
eligible claimants until the fund was liquidated. Multiple
distributions were allowed with monies set aside for applicants who
appealed their initial determination of ineligibility. On December 7,
2005, FEMA published a notice (70 FR 72845) that announced that the
application period for the Assistance Program Under the 9/11 Heroes
Stamp Act of 2001 would run from December 2, 2005 to April 3, 2006.
    Eligibility determinations were made by the Heroes Stamp Panel who
conducted nine meetings between February and November 2006 to make the
determinations. Applicants were considered on a rolling basis and were
informed of their eligibility decisions by United States mail. Of the
1,945 total applications received during the application period, the
Panel deemed 1,356 eligible. Each applicant received a letter notifying
them of their eligibility determination, and for those deemed eligible,
FEMA provided an Electronic Funds Transfer form to be completed and
returned to FEMA. Between November 2006 and April 2007, FEMA
distributed $7,400 to each eligible applicant, who supplied the
necessary banking information for the Electronic Funds Transfer.
    Of the 589 applicants found ineligible, 64 submitted appeals.
During the appeals process, 21 of these applicants submitted additional
information and were found eligible. This brought the total number of
eligible applicants to 1,377. In July 2007, the remaining amount of the
fund was distributed. In total, 1,357 of the eligible applicants
received $7,672.53; the final 20 applicants received $7,672.52. This
difference was required in order to liquidate the entire amount of the
funds raised.

II. Discussion of Public Comments

    FEMA received 36 comments from the public regarding the interim
rule. The comments received, together with FEMA's responses, are set
forth below. All previously published rulemaking documents, as well as
all comments received are available in the public docket for this
rulemaking. The public docket for this rulemaking is available online
by conducting a search for Docket ID FEMA-2005-0001 or Legacy ID DHS-
2005-0006, at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.
    Continuation of semipostal stamp: Two comments suggested that the
Heroes semipostal stamp should be continued. FEMA could not implement
this suggestion. The Heroes Stamp Act specified that the stamp be
issued for such period of time that USPS considered necessary and
appropriate, but in no event could it continue issuing the stamp after
December 31, 2004. USPS discontinued selling the Heroes semipostal
stamp on December 31, 2004.
    Eligibility: Seven comments suggested that iron, steel, and
construction workers should be included in the definition of emergency
relief personnel; one comment expressed concern that HAZMAT response
teams might not be eligible under the program; seven comments suggested
that the funds should be available to all victims of September 11,
2001, not just emergency relief personnel; three comments suggested
that non-uniformed volunteers should be eligible to receive funds; and
another commenter suggested that the funds should only be distributed
to rescue workers and emergency volunteers who have been disabled and
that the funds should not be distributed to the police and firefighter
families unless there are extenuating circumstances.
    While FEMA recognizes that iron, steel, and construction workers
performed an invaluable service in response to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, FEMA determined that these workers did not fall
within the statutory definition of emergency relief personnel set out
in the Heroes Stamp Act. The statutory definition of emergency relief
personnel included a specific list of occupations, which did not
include iron, steel, or construction workers. It included firefighters,
law enforcement officers, paramedics, emergency medial technicians, and
members of the clergy. The Heroes Stamp Act did provide for inclusion
in that definition ``other individuals (including employees of legally
organized and recognized volunteer organizations, whether compensated
or not) who, in the course of professional duties, respond to fire,
medical, hazardous material, or other similar emergencies.'' FEMA
determined that iron, steel, and construction workers do not fall under
the statutory definition because they do not typically respond, in the
course of their professional duties, to fire, medical, hazardous
material, or other similar emergencies.
    The language of the statute also limited FEMA from distributing the

funds to all victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, or to all
individuals who provided assistance. The Heroes Stamp Act directed that
the funds were for emergency workers who had been permanently disabled
and the families of emergency workers killed. The Heroes Stamp Act
contained no provisions regarding other civilian victims. Furthermore,
the Act did not give FEMA discretion relating to need or extenuating
circumstances. It was left to FEMA's discretion to determine the
distribution of the funds, and it decided to distribute funds equally
among all eligible applicants, including the families of police and
firefighters.
    With respect to HAZMAT responders, FEMA did consider them to be in
an eligible class of responders. The interim rule used the same
definition for emergency relief personnel as the Heroes Stamp Act,
which includes response to hazardous material: ``firefighters, law
enforcement officers, paramedics, emergency medical technicians,
members of the clergy, or other individuals * * * who, in the course of
professional duties, respond to fire, medical, hazardous material, or
other similar emergencies'' (emphasis added). Although FEMA did not
keep a tally sheet of each class of worker who received funds from sale
of the stamp, FEMA would have considered a HAZMAT worker to be well
within the statutory definition of emergency relief personnel set out
in the Heroes Stamp Act.
    Amount of funds distributed to each applicant: Three comments
suggested that the funds raised through the sale of the Heroes
semipostal stamp should be divided equally among all eligible
applicants, while one comment suggested that those applying on behalf
of deceased individuals should receive larger distribution than
permanently disabled applicants. It was also suggested that geographic
cost of living differences should be taken into account.
    The Heroes Stamp Act left the manner of distribution within FEMA's
discretion. The funds were, to the extent possible, distributed equally
among the eligible applicants. Factors considered by FEMA in its
decision included the limited funds available to distribute, FEMA's
limited ability to assess degrees of disability, and an inherent sense
of fairness in providing everyone the same amount.
    Interest: One comment questioned whether interest was earned on the
funds, and suggested that any earned interest should be distributed to
the applicants. Interest was not earned on the funds. Funds generated
as the result of a statute, such as the Heroes Stamp Act, that
authorizes the imposition and collection of specific charges and the
use of the funds generated, are appropriated funds. In the absence of
an express provision in the statute to the contrary, the funds are
subject to the various restrictions and limitations on the uses of
appropriated moneys (35 Comp. Gen. 615 (1956), 57 Comp. Gen. 311
(1978)). Given that these funds are appropriations, and lacking any
specific statutory authority to invest and retain interest in the
established fund or account, the accretions would have been required to
be deposited to the Miscellaneous Receipts of the Treasury. (31 U.S.C.
3302) FEMA was prohibited from distributing any earned interest to the
applicants, and therefore opted not to deposit the funds in an interest
bearing account.
    Distribution by FEMA: One comment asked why FEMA was distributing
the funds. In the Heroes Stamp Act, Congress directed USPS to transfer
the funds to FEMA to carry out distribution.
    Date of distribution unclear: Three comments noted that the interim
final rule did not include a date of distribution. A number of factors
precluded FEMA from providing a date of distribution in the interim
rule. First, the interim final rule did not include an application
period. At that point, before the application period had been
determined, it would not have been feasible to set a date of
distribution. Additionally, when the interim rule was published FEMA
had no way to determine the number of applications it would receive.
Finally, because funds were distributed through Electronic Funds
Transfer, the timing of distribution to each applicant depended on how
quickly the applicant provided banking information.
    Complicated application process: One comment stated that the
application process was too complicated. FEMA made every effort to make
the application process as simple as possible. The application
contained detailed instructions, FEMA set up a dedicated phone number
and e-mail address for questions or concerns, and questions were
answered clearly and promptly. Additional information, including a copy
of the interim rule was made available on the United States Fire
Administration's Web site.
    Unclear appeal process: Two commenters stated that the interim
final rule was unclear regarding timelines and deadlines for the
appeals process. FEMA disagrees. To appeal an ineligibility
determination, applicants were required to submit to FEMA's Appeals
Specialist a notice of intent to appeal within 15 calendar days of the
issuance of FEMA's determination of eligibility. The notice was
required to contain a brief statement explaining why the applicant
believed the determination was incorrect. Within 60 calendar days after
the issuance of FEMA's determination, the applicant was required to
submit their full written appeal, not to exceed 15 pages exclusive of
supporting documentation. The address to submit the notice of intent to
appeal and the appeal were also provided. This information was detailed
in Sec.  153.8 of the rule. It was also restated, along with the reason
for their denial, in the letters that were sent to applicants who were
denied.
    Contact family of victims: One comment suggested that applications
from affected personnel or their survivors should be compared to known
names of victims to make sure no families are missed. FEMA made every
effort to publicize the Heroes Stamp Program to ensure that all
potentially eligible people would be aware of the program and its
requirements. In addition to the interim rule and postings on the
United States Fire Administration Web page, several outreach efforts
were conducted prior to and early in the application process. These
included face to face briefings with impacted New York City agencies
and their labor unions, and discussions with agencies in Shanksville,
PA, and emergency relief agencies in areas surrounding the Pentagon.
Broadcast e-mails also were forwarded to all of the urban search and
rescue (USAR) teams that assisted at the three locations. The media
also carried stories regarding the availability of the program and how
to apply. Finally, the New York City Police Department, Fire
Department, and Port Authority all cooperated and coordinated with the
Heroes Stamp Project office by providing special assistance and
individual notification directly to survivors of the deceased about how
to avail themselves of the program.
    Permanent disability should not be required: One comment suggested
that eligible injuries should not be required to be permanent
disabilities, and two comments suggested that those with permanent
mental disabilities should be eligible as well as those with permanent
physical disabilities. The Heroes Stamp Act specifically limited the
assistance to emergency relief personnel killed or permanently
disabled. Congress left FEMA no discretion in this area. The Heroes
Stamp Act did not, however, define the term ``permanently disabled''.
Within its discretion, FEMA decided that the intent of the Heroes Stamp
Act

was best met by interpreting that term to mean physically disabled.
Validating ``permanent mental disabilities'' was found to be too
difficult. Further, considering the relatively small amount of funds
FEMA had to distribute, it was determined that further widening
eligibility would further reduce the amount of funds available for
distribution to those with clear cut permanent physical disabilities.
    Focus on Pentagon and Shanksville, PA: One comment suggested that
the program should focus on those who responded to the events in
Shanksville, PA and at the Pentagon. The Heroes Stamp Act directed that
the funds be made available to the families of emergency workers killed
or permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty while
responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States on
September 11, 2001. FEMA believed that the Congressional intent was for
the funds to be available to personnel injured or killed in response to
all of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,
2001. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place at
the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania,
the interim rule made clear that all three locations were included in
the program.
    Portion for support agencies: One comment suggested that a portion
of the funds should be directed to nonprofit World Trade Center
agencies. The Heroes Stamp Act was clear that the funds were to be
distributed to the emergency relief workers themselves or their
families. The interim rule followed this statutory language. Congress
left FEMA no discretion in this area.
    Original intent of legislation: Two comments asked that FEMA follow
the original intent of the Heroes Stamp Act. FEMA agreed. The Heroes
Stamp Act states that the semipostal stamp was to be issued ``in order
to afford the public a direct and tangible way to provide assistance to
the families of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently
disabled in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks
against the United States on September 11, 2001.'' The Heroes Stamp Act
directed FEMA to carry out this purpose. FEMA, within its discretion,
promulgated the interim rule and distributed the funds in order to best
carry out this intent.
    Determinations: One comment suggested that the interim rule was
unclear as to who would review applications and make final
determinations on eligibility. The Heroes Stamp Act contained no
provisions relating to the review process. Within its discretion, FEMA
formed a Heroes Stamp Panel which conducted 9 meetings between February
and November 2006 to make the final eligibility determinations on all
1,945 applications. The panel's five members represented FEMA's Office
of Chief Counsel (formerly the Office of General Counsel), the Office
of Legislative Affairs, and the United States Fire Administration. In
making their final eligibility determinations, these individuals
largely relied upon determinations of permanent physical disability
made by appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as
appropriate private entities.

III. Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedure Act

    As noted in the interim rule, FEMA found good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) to issue an interim rule which would take effect upon the
closure of the comment period because delay would be impracticable in
light of the eligible individuals' need for relief. FEMA also noted
that prompt disbursement of the benefits from the Heroes Stamp sales
proceeds was in the public interest. FEMA received no adverse comments
as to the finding of good cause.
    Now that all funds have been distributed and all appeals resolved,
FEMA is removing the regulatory text from the Code of Federal
Regulations. FEMA again finds good cause not to take public comment or
wait 30 days before making this rule effective under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
and (d). Because all of the funds available from the sale of the Heroes
Stamp have been distributed, and all appeals have been resolved, there
is no longer any need for these regulations. Allowing public comment
and/or delaying the effectiveness of this rule for 30 days is
unnecessary.

B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    FEMA prepared and reviewed this rulemaking under the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Although the
interim rule was determined to be a significant, but not economically
significant regulatory action, now that all funds have been distributed
and all appeals resolved these regulations no longer serve a purpose to
FEMA or the public. OMB has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action. OMB has not reviewed this rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FEMA is not required to prepare
a final regulatory flexibility analysis for this final rule because the
agency has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.

D. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In the interim rule, FEMA determined that this rule fell within the
exclusion category of 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii), which excludes from NEPA
requirements the preparation, revision, adoption of regulations,
directives, manuals, and other guidance documents related to actions
that qualify for categorical exclusions. No commenters disagreed with
our determination. The rulemaking provided for disbursement of funds
received from the sale of the Heroes Stamp to emergency relief
personnel who were permanently disabled while serving in the line of
duty in connection with the terrorist attacks against the United States
on September 11, 2001, or to the families of such personnel who were
killed in such line of duty. The rule had no significant effect on the
human environment. Because no other extraordinary circumstances have
been identified, this rule does not require the preparation of either
an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as
defined by NEPA.

E. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994, each Federal agency is
required to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that
substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that
ensures that those programs, policies, and activities do not have the
effect of excluding persons from participation, denying persons
benefits of our programs, or subjecting persons to discrimination
because of their race, color, or national origin.
    This final rule removes regulations that implemented the 9/11
Heroes Stamp Act of 2001. The Heroes Stamp Act provided for the sale of
the Heroes Stamp and for disbursement of the proceeds to emergency
relief personnel who were permanently disabled while serving in the
line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks against the
United States on September 11, 2001, or to the families of such
personnel who were killed in such line of duty. There were no effects
on human health or the environment as a result of this

rulemaking, and the Heroes Stamp funds were distributed without regard
to race, color, or national origin; thus the requirements of Executive
Order 12898 do not apply to this rule.

F. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

    FEMA has sent this final rule to the Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808. The rule is not a ``major rule''
within the meaning of that Act. This rule will not result in a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It
will not have ``significant adverse effects'' on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule is not an unfunded mandate within the meaning of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 5 U.S.C. 1531-1538. This rule
will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, nor by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no action is required by
the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to
in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism
implications. This rule provided for the distribution of funds
collected from the sale of the semipostal Heroes Stamp. It had no
substantial direct effects 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. It did not
preempt any State laws. As noted in the interim rule, FEMA determined
that this rule did not have sufficient federalism implications
sufficient to warrant the preparation of a federalism impact statement.
This final action which removes the interim regulations likewise has no
federalism implications.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The interim rule contained information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Under the PRA, a person may not be penalized for failing to comply
with an information collection that does not display a currently valid
OMB control number. The information collection, which includes FEMA
Form 75-14, the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 Eligibility and
Application for Benefits form, was approved under OMB number 1660-0091
with an expiration date of July 2008. The Paperwork Reduction Act
Collection Discontinuation Form for 1660-0091 was filed on August 15,
2007.

J. Executive Order 13175, Consultation With and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments

    FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This rule 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.

K. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). This rule meets
applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 153

    Disaster assistance, Emergency relief personnel, Terrorism.

0
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the
authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq., FEMA amends 44 CFR
chapter 1, by removing part 153.

PART 153--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-10936 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-17-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21094-21095]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61912; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-15]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Making Permanent the Exchange's
Pilot Program With Respect to Its Continued Listing Standards

April 15, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On February 26, 2010, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposal to make permanent an amendment to the continued listing
requirements in Section 802.01B of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual
(the ``Manual'') that is currently in effect on a pilot program basis
(the ``Pilot Program''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010.\4\ The Commission
received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61657 (March 5,
2010), 75 FR 11970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to make its Pilot Program permanent. Prior to
the adoption of the Pilot Program,\5\ Section 802.01B(I) of the Manual
provided that any company that qualified to list under the Earnings
Test set out in Section 102.01C(I) or in Section 103.01B(I) (in the
case of foreign private issuers) or pursuant to the requirements set
forth under the Assets and Equity Test set forth in Section 102.01C(IV)
or the ``Initial Listing Standard for Companies Transferring from NYSE
Arca'' (the ``NYSE Arca Transfer Standard'') set forth in Section
102.01(C)(V) (the NYSE Arca Transfer Standard expired by its terms on
August 31, 2009) was considered to be below compliance standards if
such company's average global market capitalization over a consecutive
30 trading-day period was less than $75 million and, at the same time,
total stockholders' equity was less than $75 million. Under the Pilot
Program, companies that listed under the initial listing standards set
forth in the immediately preceding sentence are considered to be below
compliance standards if average global market capitalization over a
consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50 million and, at the
same time, total stockholders' equity is less than $50 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59996 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26912 (June 4, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-48) (the ``Pilot
Program Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Program originally expired by its terms on October 31,
2009, but the Exchange extended its application for an additional five
months, until February 28, 2010.\6\ NYSE filed an immediately effective
proposed rule change to extend the Pilot Program for a further four
months, until June 30, 2010.\7\ This order approves the Pilot Program
on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60911 (November 2,
2009), 74 FR 57730 (November 9, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2009-109).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61609 (March 1,
2010), 75 FR 10336 (March 5, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange \8\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development and enforcement of adequate standards governing the
initial and continued listing of securities on an exchange is an
activity of critical importance to financial markets and the investing
public. Listing standards serve as a means for an exchange to screen
issuers and to provide listed status only to bona fide companies that
have, or in the case of an initial public offering will have,
sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide
the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly markets.
Adequate standards are especially important given the expectations of
investors regarding exchange trading and the imprimatur of listing on a
particular market. Once a security has been approved for initial
listing, maintenance criteria allow an exchange to monitor the status
and trading characteristics of that issue to ensure that it continues
to meet the exchange's standards for market depth and liquidity so that
fair and orderly markets can be maintained.
    The Commission believes that the proposal to make permanent the
Pilot Program is reasonable and consistent with the Act, and furthers
investor protection and the public interest. Under the proposal,
companies that initially listed under the Earnings Test, Assets and
Equity Test, or NYSE Arca Transfer Standard are considered to be below
compliance standards if average global market capitalization over a
consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50 million and, at the
same time, total stockholders' equity is less than $50 million. The
Commission notes that for companies listed under the Earnings Test, the
Pilot Program returned continued listing requirements to those in place
prior to the higher standards adopted on June 9, 2005.\11\ Thus, even
prior to implementation of the Pilot Program, the Exchange had had
considerable historical experience with the continued listing of
companies that had continued to trade on the Exchange with global
market capitalization and stockholders' equity each below $75 million
but greater than $50 million. In addition, the Exchange represents that
its experience under the Pilot Program has been very positive, as only
one of the companies that was deemed back in compliance as a result of
the adoption

of the Pilot Program has subsequently fallen below the standard as
amended by the Pilot Program as of the date of this filing and only two
additional companies have been newly identified as being below the
Pilot Program standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51813 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 35484 (June 20, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2004-20). The Assets and
Equity Test set forth in Section 102.01C(IV) and the NYSE Arca
Transfer Standard set forth in Section 102.01C(V) were adopted
subsequent to this amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the continued listing standards as
amended by the Pilot Program are at least as stringent as those of any
other national securities exchange. In addition, the Exchange notes
that the Commission stated in the Pilot Program Notice\12\ that it
believed that the continued listing standards adopted under the Pilot
Program met the requirements established in Exchange Act Rule 3a51-
1(a)(2)(ii)\13\ in that they were reasonably related to the initial
listing standards set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Exchange Act Rule
3a51-1 (the ``Penny Stock Rule'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the Pilot Program Notice at Note 5.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.3a51-1(a)(2)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.3a51-1(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, the Commission believes that permanent adoption
of the Pilot Program is appropriate and that the continued listing
standards, although lower than the standards in place prior to the
Pilot Program, should help to ensure that listed companies continue to
have adequate depth and liquidity to maintain fair and orderly markets
for the protection of investors. Consequently, the Commission believes
that the Pilot Program is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2010-15) is hereby
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9358 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 80 [ OAR 2003 0079, FRL ] RIN 2060 AJ99 Final Rule to Implement the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard   Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as they Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline I. What is the Background for this Rule? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 II. What is Included in this Rule? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 III. In Short, What Does this Final Rule Contain? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Summary of Section IV: Final Rule for Phase 2 Elements Other than New Source Review and Reformulated Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Summary of Section V: EPA's Final Rule for New Source Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Summary of Section VI: Final Rule for RFG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Summary of Section VII: Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 IV. Final Rule for Phase 2 Elements Other than New Source Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A. Should prescribed requirements of subpart 2 apply in all 8 hour nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2, or is there flexibility in application in certain narrowlydefined circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B. How will we address long range transport of ground level ozone and its precursors when implementing the 8 hour ozone standard? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 C. How will we address transport of ground level ozone and its precursors for rural nonattainment areas, areas affected by intrastate transport, and areas affected by international transport? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1. Rural transport nonattainment areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2. Intrastate Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3. How will EPA address transport of ground level ozone and its precursors for areas affected by international transport? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 D. How will EPA address requirements for modeling and attainment demonstration SIPs for areas implementing the 8 hour ozone standard? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 E. What requirements for RFP should apply under the 8 hour ozone standard? . . . . . 114 1. General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2. What is the content and timing of the plan for addressing the RFP requirements under section 182( b)( 1) for areas covered under subpart 2? . . . . . . . . . 128 3. What baseline year should be required for the emissions inventory for the RFP requirement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4. Should moderate and higher classified areas be subject to prescribed additional RFP requirements prior to their attainment date? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5. What is the timing of the submission of the RFP plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 6. How should CAA restrictions on creditable measures be interpreted? Which national measures should count as generating emissions reductions credit toward RFP requirements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 7. For areas covered only by subpart 1, how should the RFP requirement be structured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 8. Where part of an 8 hour nonattainment area was a 1 hour nonattainment area with an ROP obligation extending past 2002, can emission reductions from the area's 1 hour ROP plan be used as credit toward meeting the area's 8 hour RFP plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 9. Will EPA's " Clean Data Policy" apply for purposes of 8 hour RFP, attainment demonstrations and other related requirements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 10. How will RFP be addressed in Tribal areas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 11. How will RFP targets be calculated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 12. Should EPA continue the policy of allowing substitution of controls from outside the nonattainment area within 100 kilometers for VOC and 200 kilometers for NO x? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 13. When must RFP emissions reductions be achieved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 14. Banked emission reduction credits ( including shutdown credits) . . . . . . . . 247 F. Are contingency measures required in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 G. What requirements should apply for RACM and RACT for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 1. Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 2. Reasonably Available Control Measures ( RACM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 H. How will the section 182( f) NO x provisions be handled under the 8 hour ozone standard? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 I. Should EPA promulgate a NSR provision to encourage development patterns that reduce overall emissions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 J. How will EPA ensure that the 8 hour ozone standard will be implemented in a way which allows an optimal mix of controls for ozone, PM 2.5, and regional haze? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 K. What emissions inventory requirements should apply under the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 L. What guidance should be provided that is specific to Tribes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 M. What are the requirements for OTRs under the 8 hour ozone standard? . . . . . . . . 357 N. Are there any additional requirements related to enforcement and compliance? . . . 360 O. What requirements should apply to emergency episodes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 P. What ambient monitoring requirements will apply under the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Q. When will EPA require 8 hour attainment demonstration SIP submissions? . . . . . 368 R. How will the statutory time periods in the CAA be addressed when we redesignate areas to nonattainment following initial designations for the 8 hour NAAQS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 V. EPA's Final Rule for New Source Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 1. The Major NSR Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 2. What we proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 B. Summary of final rule and legal basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 1. Final action and legal basis for changes to incorporate the 1990 CAA Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 2. Final action and legal basis for changes to criteria for emission reduction credits from shutdowns and curtailments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 3. Final action and legal basis for changes to the construction ban provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 4. Final action and legal basis for changes on applicability of appendix S and the transitional NSR program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 5. Final action and legal basis for changes to identify NO x as an ozone precursor in attainment and unclassifiable areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 6. Final changes and legal basis for changes to emission offset provisions of appendix S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 C. Comments and responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 1. Comments on proposed changes to incorporate the 1990 CAA Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 2. Comments on proposed revisions to criteria for emission reduction credits from shutdown and curtailments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 3. Comments on construction ban provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 4. Comments on applicability of appendix S and the transitional program . . . . 430 5. Comments on changes to identify NO x as an ozone precursor in attainment and unclassifiable areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 6. Comments on removing the 50 ton exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 D. NSR implementation under the 8 hour ozone NAAQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 1. Areas that have never been nonattainment for ozone . . . . . . . . . . . 438 2. Areas that are nonattainment for the 1 hour NAAQS and the 8 hour NAAQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 3. Part D NSR SIP submittals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 4. Effective date for today's requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 5. Requirements for offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 VI. Final Rule for RFG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 B. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 C. What action is EPA taking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 D. Why is EPA taking this action? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 1. RFG mandatory areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 2. RFG opt in areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 E. Future Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 F. Miscellaneous Administrative Changes to the RFG Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . 465 G. Comments and Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 VII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475 A. How will EPA's implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS affect funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 2. Summary of final rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 3. Comments and responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 C. What action is EPA taking on the Overwhelming Transport Classification for subpart 1 areas? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 VIII. STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 B. Paperwork Reduction Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519 I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 K. Congressional Review Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 L. Petitions for Judicial Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524 M. Determination Under Section 307( d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524 APPENDIX A TO PREAMBLE Methods to Account for Non Creditable Reductions when Calculating ROP Targets for the 2008 and Later ROP Milestone Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 APPENDIX B TO PREAMBLE GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537