[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23524-23527]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0143; FRL-9805-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Deferral of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions From
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for
Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the North Carolina
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North
Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NC DENR), on July 30, 2012. The SIP revision
modifies North Carolina's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
program to incorporate by reference (IBR) the federal deferral of,
until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to biogenic carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources. EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's SIP revision
because the Agency has preliminarily determined that it is consistent
with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's new source review (NSR)
permitting regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0143 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0143, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0143.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.

If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the North
Carolina SIP, contact Mr. Richard Wong, Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong's telephone number is (404) 562-
8726; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's SIP revision?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On July 30, 2012, NC DENR submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval into the North Carolina SIP to IBR \1\ the deferral until July
21, 2014, of the application of PSD permitting requirements to biogenic
CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources as promulgated in the rule entitled ``Deferral for
CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs,'' Final Rule, 76 FR 43490, (July 20, 2011) (hereafter
referred to as the ``CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule''). The July
30, 2012, SIP submittal revises North Carolina's air quality rule 15A
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D.0544--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Requirements for Greenhouse Gases to IBR the
version of 40 CFR 51.166 as of July 20, 2011.\2\ This version of 40 CFR
51.166 includes the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule
revision to the definition of ``subject to regulation'' deferring PSD
applicability to biogenic CO2 emissions from bioenergy and
other biogenic stationary sources, until July 21, 2014. Today, EPA is
proposing to approve North Carolina's July 30, 2012, SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document IBR means incorporate or
incorporates by reference.
    \2\ The scope of the 15A NCAC 02D.0544 IBR of 40 CFR 51.166 is
limited to the aspects of the federal regulation related to
CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule revisions. PSD applicability
for all other regulated NSR pollutants, as defined at 40 CFR 51.166
and 52.21, is addressed in the North Carolina SIP by regulation 15A
NCAC 02D.0530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The GHG Tailoring Rule

    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (hereafter referred
to as the GHG Tailoring Rule), for the purpose of relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens from the regulation of GHG that would,
in the absence of the rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources.
See 75 FR 31514. EPA accomplished this by tailoring the applicability
criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to
the PSD program of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the GHG
Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD applicability and
established the first two steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG
emitters.\3\ On, May 17, 2011,\4\ NC DENR submitted a SIP revision to
EPA to IBR into the North Carolina SIP Rule 15 NCAC 02D.0544--the
version of 40 CFR 51.166 as of June 3, 2010, and effective August 3,
2010, which included the GHG Tailoring Rule. EPA took final action to
approve North Carolina's May 17, 2011, SIP revision on October 18,
2011. See 76 FR 64240. Please refer to the GHG Tailoring Rule for
specific details on the PSD applicability provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Please refer to the July 12, 2012 (77 FR 41051) rulemaking
finalizing GHG Tailoring Rule Step 3.
    \4\ North Carolina's proposed SIP revision incorporated a new
PSD rule into North Carolina's SIP for GHG, at 15A NCAC 02D.0544--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Greenhouse
Gases, to address the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule

    In the July 20, 2011, final rulemaking, EPA deferred until July 21,
2014, the consideration of CO2 emissions from bioenergy and
other biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to as ``biogenic
CO2 emissions'') when determining whether a stationary
source meets the PSD and title V \5\ applicability thresholds,
including those for the application of best available control
technology (BACT).\6\ Stationary sources that combust biomass (or
otherwise emit biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct or
modify during the deferral period will avoid the application of PSD to
the biogenic CO2 emissions resulting from those actions. The
deferral applies only to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not
affect non-GHG pollutants or other GHG (e.g., methane and nitrous
oxide) emitted from the combustion of biomass fuel. Also, the deferral
only pertains to biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD and title
V program and does not pertain to any other EPA programs such as the
GHG Reporting Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule
made changes to the federal PSD and title V permitting programs.
North Carolina's July 30, 2012, submission did not revise the
state's title V program to adopt the CO2 deferral rule.
Furthermore, the title V permitting program is not part of the North
Carolina federally approved SIP.
    \6\ As with the Tailoring Rule, the CO2 Biomass
Deferral Rule addresses both PSD and title V requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as emissions of
CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the
combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than
fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon. Examples of ``biogenic
CO2 emissions'' include, but are not limited to:
     CO2 generated from the biological decomposition
of waste in landfills,

wastewater treatment, or manure management processes;
     CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected
from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater
treatment, or manure management processes;
     CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production
or other industrial fermentation processes;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction
of municipal solid waste or biosolids;
     CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction
of tire-derived fuel; and,
     CO2 derived from combustion of biological
material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue,
and agricultural material.
    The deferral is intended to be a temporary measure, in effect for
no more than three years, to allow the Agency time to conduct detailed
examination of the science and technical issues related to accounting
for biogenic CO2 emissions, and determine what, if any,
treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the PSD and
title V program. The biomass deferral rule is not EPA's final
determination on the treatment of biogenic CO2 emissions in
those programs. The Agency plans to complete its science and technical
review and any follow-on rulemakings within the three-year deferral
period and further believes that three years is ample time to complete
these tasks. It is possible that the subsequent rulemaking, depending
on the nature of EPA's determinations, would supersede the biomass
deferral rulemaking and become effective in fewer than three years. In
that event, North Carolina may revise its SIP accordingly.
    EPA's final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for
biogenic CO2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of
the obligation to meet the PSD and title V permitting requirements for
other pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source
during the deferral period or that may be applicable to the source at a
future date pending the results of EPA's study and subsequent
rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is
applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions from a particular
source during the three-year effective period and the study and future
rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption from PSD and title
V permitting requirements for the biogenic CO2 emissions
from a source with particular characteristics, then the deferral would
end for that type of source and its biogenic CO2 emissions
would have to be appropriately considered in any applicability
determinations that the source may need to conduct for future
stationary source permitting purposes, consistent with that subsequent
rulemaking and the final GHG Tailoring Rule (e.g., a major source
determination for title V purposes or a major modification
determination for PSD purposes). EPA also wishes to clarify that the
Agency does not require that a PSD permit issued during the deferral
period be amended or that any PSD requirements in a PSD permit existing
at the time the deferral took effect, such as BACT limitations, be
revised or removed from an effective PSD permit for any reason related
to the deferral or when the deferral period expires.
    40 CFR 52.21(w) requires that any PSD permit shall remain in
effect, unless and until it expires or it is rescinded, under the
limited conditions specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD permit that
is issued to a source while the deferral was effective need not be
reopened or amended if the source is no longer eligible to exclude its
biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD applicability after the
deferral expires. However, if such a source undertakes a modification
that could potentially require a PSD permit and the source is not
eligible to continue excluding its biogenic CO2 emissions
after the deferral expires, the source will need to consider its
biogenic CO2 emissions in assessing whether it needs a PSD
permit to authorize the modification.
    Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the
deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope of the biomass
deferral action and this proposed approval of the deferral into the
North Carolina SIP, and will be addressed through subsequent
rulemaking. The results of EPA's review of the science related to net
atmospheric impacts of biogenic CO2 and the framework to
properly account for such emissions in title V and PSD permitting
program based on the study are prospective and unknown. Thus, EPA is
unable to predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if any,
currently subject to the deferral as incorporated into the North
Carolina SIP would be subject to any permanent exemptions or which
currently deferred sources would be potentially required to account for
their emissions in the future rulemaking EPA has committed to undertake
for such purposes in three or fewer years. Only in that rulemaking can
EPA address the question of extending the deferral or putting in place
requirements that would have the equivalent effect on sources covered
by the biomass deferral. Once that rulemaking has occurred, North
Carolina may address related revisions to its SIP.

III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's SIP revision?

    North Carolina's PSD program consists of Rule 15A NCAC 2D.0530--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 15A NCAC 02D.0544--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Greenhouse
Gases, both of which IBR the provisions for the preconstruction PSD
review process as published at 40 CFR 51.166. Rule15A NCAC 2D.0530
applies to major stationary sources having the potential to emit at
least 100-tons per year (tpy) or 250-tpy or more of a regulated NSR
pollutant, depending on the type of source or modifications
constructing in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with
respect to the national ambient air quality standards. Rule 15A NCAC
02D.0544 (the subject of this proposed rulemaking) only applies to GHG-
emitting sources.
    In the July 20, 2011, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule, similar
to the approach with the Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the biomass
deferral into the federal PSD program by amending the definition of
``subject to regulation'' under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, respectively.
North Carolina's July 30, 2012, SIP revision IBR into the North
Carolina SIP 40 CFR 51.166 as of July 20, 2011, which includes the
CO2 Biomass Deferral revision to the definition of ``subject
to regulation'' deferring, until July 21, 2014, PSD applicability to
biogenic CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic
stationary sources. These changes to North Carolina's Rule 15A NCAC
02D.0544 became state effective on January 28, 2011. EPA is proposing
to approve these changes to North Carolina's Rule 15A NCAC 02D.0544 to
update the State's existing SIP-approved PSD program to be consistent
with federal NSR regulations respecting the CO2 Biomass
Deferral Rule (at 40 CFR 51.166), and the CAA.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's July 30, 2012, SIP
revision to IBR changes to federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166
promulgated in the June 3, 2010, CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision, with
regard to the aforementioned proposed actions, is approvable because it
is consistent with section 110 of the CAA and EPA NSR permitting
regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 8, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-09314 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22021-22024]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 328

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0018]

Prioritization and Allocation of Certain Scarce or Threatened
Health and Medical Resources for Domestic Use; Exemptions

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of exemptions.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announces
exemptions from a temporary final rule that FEMA published in the
Federal Register on April 10, 2020.

DATES: Applicability date: This notification applies beginning on April
17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may review the docket by searching for Docket ID FEMA-
2020-

0018, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel McMasters, Program Analyst,
Office of Policy and Program Analysis,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 10, 2020, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Administrator (FEMA Administrator or the
Administrator) published a temporary final rule (the ``rule'') to
allocate certain scarce or threatened materials for domestic use, so
that these materials may not be exported from the United States without
explicit approval by FEMA.\1\ The rule aids the response of the United
States to the spread of COVID-19 by ensuring that certain scarce or
threatened health and medical resources are appropriately allocated for
domestic use.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 85 FR 20195 (Apr. 10, 2020) (codified at 44 CFR part
328).
    \2\ See 44 CFR 328.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administrator issued the rule under the authority of the
Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA),\3\ and related
executive orders and delegations.\4\ Most prominently, on April 3,
2020, the President signed a Memorandum on Allocating Certain Scarce or
Threatened Health and Medical Resources to Domestic Use
(Memorandum).\5\ In the Memorandum, the President directed the
Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Administrator, and in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), to
use any and all authority available under section 101 of the DPA to
allocate to domestic use, as appropriate, five types of personal
protective equipment (PPE) materials (covered materials).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 50 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.
    \4\ See 85 FR at 20196-20197.
    \5\ See Memorandum on Allocating Certain Scarce or Threatened
Health and Medical Resources to Domestic Use for the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Apr.
3, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-allocating-certain-scarce-threatened-health-medical-resources-domestic-use/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Memorandum, the rule provides that until August
10, 2020, and subject to certain exemptions, no shipments of covered
materials may leave the United States without explicit approval by
FEMA.\6\ The rule requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in
coordination with such other officials as may be appropriate, to notify
FEMA of an intended export of covered materials.\7\ CBP must
temporarily detain any shipment of such covered materials pending the
Administrator's determination whether to return for domestic use, issue
a rated order for, or allow the export of part or all of the
shipment.\8\ In making such determination, the Administrator may
consult other agencies and will consider the totality of the
circumstances, including: (1) The need to ensure that scarce or
threatened items are appropriately allocated for domestic use; (2)
minimization of disruption to the supply chain, both domestically and
abroad; (3) the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the
materials and potential hoarding or price-gouging concerns; (4) the
quantity and quality of the materials; (5) humanitarian considerations;
and (6) international relations and diplomatic considerations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 44 CFR 328.102(a).
    \7\ 44 CFR 328.102(b).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 44 CFR 328.102(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to providing for the determination described above, the
rule includes one exemption to the requirement that covered materials
not leave the United States without explicit approval by FEMA. In the
interest of promoting the national defense, the Administrator
determined to generally allow the export of covered materials from
shipments made by or on behalf of U.S. manufacturers with continuous
export agreements with customers in other countries since at least
January 1, 2020, so long as at least 80 percent of such manufacturer's
domestic production of such covered materials, on a per item basis, was
distributed in the United States in the preceding 12 months.\10\ If
FEMA determines that a shipment of covered materials falls within this
exemption, such materials may be exported without further review by
FEMA, provided that the Administrator may waive this exemption and
fully review shipments of covered materials, if the Administrator
determines that doing so is necessary or appropriate to promote the
national defense.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 44 CFR 328.102(d)(1).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pertinent to this notification, the rule also provides that the
Administrator may establish, in his discretion, additional exemptions
that he determines necessary or appropriate to promote the national
defense and will announce any such exemptions by notice in the Federal
Register. This notification announces such exemptions.

Notice of Additional Exemptions

    Pursuant to 44 CFR 328.102(d)(2), section 101 of the DPA, and
related authorities, the Administrator has determined that it is
necessary and appropriate in order to promote the national defense to
exempt certain categories of covered materials from the requirements of
44 CFR 328.102(a) and (b). The Administrator may waive any of these
exemptions at any time and fully review shipments of covered materials
under 44 CFR 328.102(b) if the Administrator determines that doing so
is necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. In
addition, if CBP believes that any manufacturer, broker, distributor,
exporter, or shipper of any covered materials is intentionally
modifying its shipments in a way to take advantage of one or more of
these exemptions, diverting materials from the United States market, or
otherwise trying to circumvent the FEMA review requirements in 44 CFR
328.102(b) through application of any of the exemptions, CBP may detain
a shipment and forward information about that shipment (including the
basis for CBP's belief) to FEMA for determination.
    For exemptions (2), (3), (4), (8), and (9), below, FEMA will
require a letter of attestation to be submitted to FEMA via CBP's
document imaging system and placed on file with CBP, certifying to FEMA
the purpose of the shipment of covered materials. The letter should be
submitted to CBP with other documentation related to the shipment, and
contain the following information:
    (1) A description of which exemption(s) the exporter is claiming.
    (2) Details regarding the shipment that are sufficient for the CBP
and FEMA officials to determine whether the shipment falls under the
claimed exemption(s).
    (3) A statement that the provided information is true and accurate
to the best of the exporter's knowledge, and that the exporter is aware
that false information is subject to prosecution under the DPA, as
outlined in the allocation order.
    Exporters who have concerns about how to file this letter of
attestation should reach out to CBP to request additional details.
    The exemptions are as follows.
    (1) Shipments to U.S. Commonwealths and Territories, Including
Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Including Minor Outlying
Islands). The Administrator issues this exemption to clarify that
shipments to U.S. territories are not

considered to be ``exports'' for purposes of the implementation of the
allocation order. The Administrator believes that this exemption is
necessary to clarify the scope of the original allocation order and to
ensure that scarce or threatened items are allocated for the use of all
Americans, including Americans living in U.S. territories. The
Administrator believes that ensuring widespread access by Americans to
covered materials is necessary and appropriate to promote the national
defense and consistent with the purposes of the Presidential Memorandum
and the subsequent allocation order to provide for the needs of all
Americans.
    (2) Exports of Covered Materials by Non-profit or Non-governmental
Organizations that are Solely for Donation to Foreign Charities or
Governments for Free Distribution (Not Sale) at their Destination(s).
The Administrator believes that it is necessary and appropriate to
promote the national defense to support the efforts of domestic and
international non-profit and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
responding to COVID-19 around the world, in response to the
humanitarian concerns that have arisen as a result of this global
pandemic, and consistent with the position of the United States as a
world leader. A key element of national defense is the ability of the
United States to convey international leadership during times of
crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes our ability to
exercise moral leadership, help those in need, and to remain stalwarts
of the international community. Denying shipments of humanitarian goods
would undermine U.S. diplomacy and messaging internationally, allowing
strategic competitors to take advantage of our absence. The allocation
order recognizes the importance of humanitarian considerations by
specifying it as an explicit factor to be considered in making
determinations about whether to allow an export to proceed or to
utilize the purchase domestically. This exemption creates a limited
definition of what constitutes a humanitarian shipment for purpose of
the exemption by limiting the exemption both on the exporter side (by
limiting it to non-profit organizations or NGOs) and on the recipient
side (foreign governments or charities). Further, the exemption is
limited by specifying that the goods must be shipped as donations in
kind and cannot be sold upon receipt. This limited exemption will allow
FEMA to meet the goals of the allocation order while prioritizing
review of commercial shipments most likely to be needed for domestic
use.
    FEMA will require a letter of attestation to be submitted to FEMA
via CBP's document imaging system and placed on file with CBP,
certifying to FEMA the purpose of the shipment of covered materials.
    (3) Intracompany Transfers of Covered Materials by U.S. Companies
from Domestic Facilities to Company-owned or Affiliated Foreign
Facilities. The Administrator recognizes the international nature of
many U.S. companies, and believes that allowing these companies to
continue to produce at a high level is crucial to the functioning of
the U.S. economy. One of the factors specifically identified in the
allocation order as being critical for the national defense is
minimization of disruption of the supply chain, both domestically and
abroad. The Administrator believes that allowing this exemption would
minimize disruption to the domestic supply chain, while not causing a
detrimental shortage of covered materials to Americans.
    FEMA will require a letter of attestation to be submitted to FEMA
via CBP's document imaging system and placed on file with CBP,
certifying to FEMA the purpose of the shipment of covered materials.
    (4) Shipments of Covered Materials that are Exported Solely for
Assembly in Medical Kits and Diagnostic Testing Kits Destined for U.S.
Sale and Delivery. The Administrator recognizes that, in many
circumstances, materials destined for domestic use are assembled in
other countries, prior to being returned to the United States for
domestic distribution. One of the factors specifically identified in
the allocation order as being critical for the national defense is the
minimization of disruption of the supply chain, both domestic and
abroad. The Administrator believes that allowing the shipments of these
kits is important to allow for uninterrupted continuation of existing
supply chains, and is the most expedient means to ensure timely
delivery and allocation of these materials within the United States to
respond to the national emergency. Relying on existing supply chains
where available and efficient will maximize the ability for FEMA and
CBP to focus limited resources on areas where the supplies are being
shipped outside the United States for final disposition. As noted
above, the Administrator believes that ensuring widespread access by
Americans to covered materials is necessary and appropriate to promote
the national defense and consistent with the purposes of the
Presidential Memorandum, and the subsequent allocation order, to
provide for the needs of Americans.
    FEMA will require a letter of attestation to be submitted to FEMA
via CBP's document imaging system and placed on file with CBP,
certifying to FEMA the purpose of the shipment of covered materials.
    (5) Sealed, Sterile Medical Kits and Diagnostic Testing Kits Where
Only a Portion of the Kit is Made Up of One or More Covered Materials
That Cannot be Easily Removed Without Damaging the Kits. The
Administrator believes that detaining shipments containing these kits,
and subsequently attempting to separate the covered materials from the
kits (potentially destroying the kits in the process), is an
inefficient use of national defense resources. In addition, ready-to-
use sealed, sterile medical kits are vital for the healthcare community
globally to continue to meet broader urgent healthcare needs in the
context of the pandemic. Addressing the related healthcare needs
globally will enable other countries to best respond to and contain the
pandemic, which will advance the ability of the United States
Government to best contain the pandemic within the United States. The
Administrator believes that refraining from needlessly dismantling
valuable kits is necessary and appropriate to promote the national
defense and consistent with the purposes of the Presidential
Memorandum, and the subsequent allocation order, to provide for the
needs of Americans.
    (6) Declared Diplomatic Shipments from Foreign Embassies and
Consulates to their Home Countries. These May be Shipped via
Intermediaries (Logistics Providers) but are Shipped from and Consigned
to Foreign Governments. Pursuant to the diplomatic interests of the
United States, the Administrator believes that it is necessary and
appropriate to promote the national defense to allow diplomatic
shipments to proceed without interruption or delay. One of the factors
specifically identified in the allocation order as being critical for
the national defense is international relations and diplomatic
concerns. The Administrator believes that stopping these types of
shipments would cause significant international relations and domestic
concerns, while not providing significantly enhanced access to covered
materials for Americans. In order to continue to foster positive
diplomatic relationships with our partners and allies, the
Administrator has determined to exempt diplomatic shipments from the
allocation order.

    (7) Shipments to Overseas U.S. Military Addresses, Foreign Service
Posts (e.g., Diplomatic Post Offices), and Embassies. The Administrator
believes the intent of the Presidential Memorandum is to protect
Americans by ensuring their access to covered materials. The
Administrator believes this extends to all Americans, including those
serving our country overseas. For this reason, the Administrator
believes that it is necessary and appropriate to promote the national
defense to allow shipments of covered materials to be shipped overseas
to U.S. government employees working abroad.
    (8) In-Transit Merchandise: Shipments in Transit through the United
States with a Foreign Shipper and Consignee, Including Shipments
Temporarily Entered into a Warehouse or Temporarily Admitted to a
Foreign Trade Zone. The April 3 Presidential Memorandum states that
``To ensure that these scarce or threatened PPE materials remain in the
United States for use in responding to the spread of COVID-19, it is
the policy of the United States to prevent domestic brokers,
distributors, and other intermediaries from diverting such material
overseas'' (emphasis added).\12\ The Administrator believes that
merchandise merely passing through the United States is outside the
scope of the Presidential Memorandum. In addition, the Administrator
believes that diversion of these specific types of materials would
cause significant impacts to international relations, diplomacy, and
global supply chains, each of which is a factor that is specifically
identified in the allocation order as being necessary and appropriate
to promote the national defense. Therefore, the Administrator is
explicitly exempting these shipments from the enforcement of the
allocation order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Memorandum on Allocating Certain Scarce or Threatened
Health and Medical Resources to Domestic Use for the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sec. 1
(Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-allocating-certain-scarce-threatened-health-medical-resources-domestic-use/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA will require a letter of attestation to be submitted to FEMA
via CBP's document imaging system and placed on file with CBP,
certifying to FEMA the purpose of the shipment of covered materials.
    (9) Shipments for Which the Final Destination is Canada or Mexico.
The Administrator recognizes the important role our closest neighbors
play in the national defense interests of the United States. The
integration of the economies and supply chains among the United States,
Mexico, and Canada is robust. Many critical sectors--including, for
example, food and agriculture; communications and energy; automotive
and industrial; water and wastewater management; and law enforcement
and first responders--cross national boundaries. Negative impacts to
workers, including a lack of PPE, in these and other critical sectors
in Canada and Mexico may cause significant interruptions to the
corresponding supply chains in the United States, and in turn, may
disrupt the large flow of cross-border trade with our neighbors. In
addition, the United States maintains close economic and diplomatic
ties with these nations, which would be negatively impacted by the
restriction of exports of covered materials into these countries. In
the allocation order, the Administrator specifically identified
minimization of disruption to the supply chain, both domestically and
abroad, and international relations and diplomatic considerations as
key elements of promoting the national defense. Each would be
negatively impacted by slowing or halting the transportation of covered
materials across country lines to Canada and Mexico. For these reasons,
the Administrator has determined that this exemption is necessary and
appropriate to promote the national defense.
    FEMA will require a letter of attestation stating that the items
being shipped are for use in and not for transshipment through Canada
or Mexico, to be submitted to FEMA via CBP's document imaging system
and placed on file with CBP, certifying to FEMA the purpose of the
shipment of covered materials.
    (10) Shipments by or on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government,
including its Military. The Administrator recognizes that any shipment
of covered materials made by or on behalf of the Federal Government,
including its military, are inherently necessary and appropriate to
promote the national defense, and so should be exported without delay.

Peter T. Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-08542 Filed 4-17-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register: April 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18290-18293]
[DOCID:fr22ap09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1268]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Volvo Ocean Race 2009, Nahant, Boston
Harbor, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation
during the Volvo Ocean Race 2009 In-Port Race to be held on Broad
Sound, off Nahant, Massachusetts, on May 9, 2009. This special local
regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during the event. This proposed action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic before, during and after the race.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on May 09,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-

1268 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
selecting the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, inserting USCG-2008-1268 in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter,
and then clicking on the item in the Docket ID column. They are also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Chief Eldridge McFadden, Sector Boston,
Waterways Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule.
    Concerns raised by the Stellwagen Banks National Marine Sanctuary,
a division of NOAA, prompted the race sponsors to reevaluate certain
details of the race, including its course. Certain details, including
the course for the race, were eventually changed due to these concerns.
The lack of certainty until the recent finalization of all race details
delayed the creation of the rulemaking for this event, which made it
impracticable to create a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Volvo Ocean Race, formerly the Whitbread Round the World Race,
is a yacht race around the world, held every three years. The current
race started in Alicante, Spain on October 11, 2008, and has been
traveling internationally from port to port. In addition to a timed
race between ports, some of the ports host an In-Port Race for points.
This special local regulation addresses the In-Port Race which is to
take place within the area of responsibility of the Captain of the Port
Boston. Broad Sound is an area which is commonly used as a fishing
area. To ensure the unimpeded sailing of the races and to prevent
damage to equipment and danger to any potential fishermen or sailors in
this area, a special local regulation is necessary. On May 9, 2008, the
Volvo Ocean Race coordinators intend to hold an In-Port Race on the
waters of Broad Sound in Boston Harbor. The event will consist of up to
eight sailing yachts on a course within a 1-mile radius circular area.
A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site
to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants,
spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will
temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the race.
The event coordinators have been in contact with members of the local
communities affected including the harbormasters of Boston, Nahant and
Winthrop, Massachusetts as well as local fishermen, to request support
and inform them of the plans.

Discussion of Rule

    This ruling proposes to create a Special Local Regulation
encompassing a two-mile wide sailing race area and associated spectator
area with a center point of 42[deg]23' N., 70[deg]55'45'' W., within
Broad Sound, Nahant, Massachusetts from 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on May 9,
2009. The regulation will be in effect for only five and one half
hours, after which time the area will be opened to all vessel traffic.
The course of the race itself will be within the two-mile diameter area
and will be set up and marked with sailing buoys according to the winds
the day of the race. Except for participants and spectator vessels or
other vessels as authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no
person or vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated
area during the enforcement period.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action as it is a
temporary event which will be in effect only for a short period of
time. Although this regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a
portion of the Broad Sound during the event, the effect of this
regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that
the regulated area would be in effect and the extensive advance
notification and outreach the Volvo Ocean Race coordinators have made
to the maritime community, as well as via broadcast and local notice to
mariners, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: Fishermen, and the owners or operators
of vessels intending to transit, fish or anchor in a portion of Broad
Sound, Massachusetts, from 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on May 9, 2009.
    This special local regulation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: This rule would be in effect for only five and a half hours
and vessel traffic could pass around the regulated area. Before the
effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to
users of the sound.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can

better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves the creation of a
special local regulation for a marine event of limited duration. Under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not
required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35-T01-1268 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T01-1268  Volvo Ocean Race 2009, Broad Sound, Nahant,
Massachusetts.

    (a) Regulated area. A zone comprised of a circle two nautical miles
in diameter with the center point at position 42[deg]23'00'' N.,
070[deg]55'45'' W.
    (b) Special Local Regulation. The regulated area is closed to all
transiting traffic except that traffic involved in, supporting or
viewing the Volvo Ocean Race.
    (c) Effective dates. This regulation is effective from 10:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m. on May 9, 2009.
    (d) Definitions. (1) Patrol vessel means any Coast Guard vessel
designated as Patrol Commander.
    (2) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander is a commissioned, warrant,
petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Boston. The Patrol Commander is empowered to control
movement of vessels in the regulated area and adjoining waters during
the hours these regulations are in effect.
    (3) A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle, siren, or horn
from vessels patrolling the area shall serve as

a signal to stop. Vessels or persons signaled shall stop and shall
comply with the orders of the patrol vessels. Failure to due so may
result in the expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    (4) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, but may not block a
navigable channel.

    Dated: March 10, 2009.
Gail P. Kulisch,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. E9-9165 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14924-14925]
[DOCID:fr20mr08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0205; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-17]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Walden, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Walden, CO.
Additional Class E airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using
a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Walden-Jackson County Airport.
This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft
executing the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Walden-Jackson County Airport,
Walden, CO.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 18, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace at Walden,
CO (73 FR 3431). This action would improve the safety of IFR aircraft
executing this new RNAV GPS SIAP approach procedure at Walden-Jackson
County Airport, Walden, CO. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Walden, CO. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing
a new RNAV (GPS) approach procedure at Walden-Jackson County Airport,
Walden, CO.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
controlled airspace at Walden-Jackson County Airport, Walden, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 17

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO, E5 Walden, CO [New]

Walden-Jackson County Airport, CO
    (Lat. 40[deg]45'01'' N., long. 106[deg]16'17'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5-mile radius of Walden-Jackson County Airport, and

within 4 miles each side of the 342[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 5-mile radius to V-524 northwest of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 7, 2008.
Kevin Nolan,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-1028 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38728]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4116-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Illinois; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4116-DR), dated May 10, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 20, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 10, 2013.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-15358 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28724-28726]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80973; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Expediting List Selection in Arbitration

June 19, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On April 26, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to provide that the Director of
FINRA's Office of Dispute Resolution (``ODR Director'') will send the
list or lists or arbitrators generated by the Neutral List Selection
System (``NLSS'') to all parties at the same time, within approximately
30 days after the last answer is due, regardless of the parties'
agreement to extend any answer due date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 15, 2017.\3\ The public comment period closed on June
5, 2017. The Commission received five comment letters in response to
the Notice, all of which supported the proposed rule change.\4\ This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 80634 (May 9, 2017), 82 FR
22363 (May 15, 2017) (File No. SR-FINRA-2017-009) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso,
P.C., dated May 11, 2017 (``Caruso Letter''); Ryan K. Bakhtiari,
Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated May 15, 2017 (``Bakhtiari
Letter''); Glenn S. Gitomer, McCausland Keen + Buckman, dated May
26, 2017 (``Gitomer Letter''); Marnie C. Lambert, President, Public
Investors Arbitration Bar Association (``PIABA''), dated June 1,
2017 (``PIABA Letter''); Andres Gomez III, Esquire, Executive
Principal, AG Consultants, dated June 4, 2017 (``Gomez Letter'').
Comment letters are available at www.sec.gov.

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

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Notice. See
Notice, 82 FR at 22363-22364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under FINRA Rules 12402 (Cases with One Arbitrator) and 12403
(Cases with Three Arbitrators) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for
Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and FINRA Rule 13403 (Generating
and Sending Lists to the Parties) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure
for Industry Disputes (``Industry Code,'' and together with the
Customer Code, the ``Codes''), a party must serve an answer on each
other party to an arbitration within the timeframes specified under the
applicable provisions of the Codes. For example, FINRA Rule 12303
requires a respondent to serve an answer specifying the relevant facts
and available defenses to the statement of claim on each other party to
the arbitration within 45 days of receipt of the statement of claim
(the ``answer due date'').\6\ If there are multiple respondents to an
arbitration, and the respondents are added at different times, each
respondent would have a different answer due date.\7\ The Codes
currently require the ODR Director \8\ to wait until after the last
answer is due \9\ to send the list or lists of arbitrators generated by
NLSS to the parties. Specifically, the Codes provide that the ODR
Director must send the list or lists of arbitrators to all parties at
the same time within approximately 30 days after the last answer is
due.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also FINRA Rule 13303.
    \7\ If an amended claim adds a new party to the arbitration, the
new party would be required to serve an answer on all other parties
within 45 days of receipt of the claim. See FINRA Rules 12306,
12310, 13306, and 13310.
    \8\ Unless the Codes provide that the ODR Director may not
delegate a specific function, the term includes FINRA staff to whom
the ODR Director has delegated authority. See FINRA Rules 12100(k)
and 13100(k). See also FINRA Rules 12103 and 13103.
    \9\ The answer due date for the last respondent added to the
arbitration would be when the last answer is due for purposes of the
Codes.
    \10\ The Codes also state that the parties will receive
employment history for the past 10 years and other background
information for each arbitrator listed. See FINRA Rules 12402,
12403, and 13403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, when parties to an arbitration agree to extend the
deadline for when an answer is due, the ODR Director uses that new,
agreed-upon extended answer due date as the last answer due date for
sending the arbitrator list or lists to the parties.\11\ FINRA believes
that by sending the arbitrator list or lists after the original due
date for the last answer, regardless of any extension, it can shorten
the time it takes for an arbitration to conclude in those
instances.\12\ Party agreements to extend answer due dates would no
longer affect the timing of providing the arbitrator list or lists to
the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FINRA stated that in 2015, parties requested an extension
to answer in approximately 65 percent of arbitration cases served;
in 2016, the figure was approximately 62 percent. See Notice at
22363 n.9.
    \12\ See Notice at 22363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is therefore proposing to amend FINRA Rules 12402(c)(1),
12403(b)(1), and 13403(c)(1) to provide that the ODR Director will send
the list or lists generated by NLSS to all parties at the same time,
within approximately 30 days after the last answer is due, regardless
of the parties' agreement to extend any answer due date.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As parties must return the ranked arbitrator list or lists to the
ODR Director no more than 20 days after the date upon which the ODR
Director sent the list or lists to the parties,\14\ sending the list or
lists after the original due date for the last answer would give all
parties the same amount of time to create their ranked arbitrator list
or lists. Further, FINRA believes that sending the list or lists at
this time would result in earlier arbitrator appointment and,
therefore, an earlier initial prehearing conference at which the
hearings are scheduled.\15\ FINRA believes that in the many instances
in which the parties agree to extend an answer due date, the proposed
rule change would help arbitrations conclude in less time than they do
under current rules.\16\ FINRA further notes that, currently, parties
often jointly request that the ODR Director send the list or lists to
the parties before the last answer is due.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See FINRA Rules 12402(d)(3), 12403(c)(3), and 13404(d).
    \15\ See FINRA Rules 12500(c) and 13500(c); see Notice at 22363.
    \16\ See Notice at 22363.
    \17\ See id. at 22364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary

    As noted above, the Commission received five comment letters on the
proposed rule change, all of which supported the proposal.\18\ One
commenter described the proposal as ``a fair, equitable and reasonable
approach that would facilitate the fairness and efficiency of the
participant experience in the FINRA arbitration forum and should,
accordingly, be approved by the SEC on an expedited basis.'' \19\
Another commenter called the proposal an ``outstanding initiative.''
\20\ Two commenters expressed the view that the proposal would simply
codify existing accepted practice.\21\ A majority of commenters
expressed the view that the proposal would enhance and expedite the
arbitration process,\22\ which, as one commenter noted, currently lasts
for 14.4 months.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Caruso Letter, Bakhtiari Letter; Gitomer Letter; PIABA
Letter; Gomez Letter.
    \19\ Caruso Letter.
    \20\ Gomez Letter.
    \21\ See Gitomer Letter; PIABA Letter.
    \22\ See Caruso Letter; Bakhtiari Letter; Gitomer Letter; PIABA
Letter.
    \23\ PIABA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comment
letters, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\24\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,\25\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Notice, the proposal would ``enable the parties,
or their counsel, to evaluate and rank the arbitrator list or lists at
the same time that they prepare their responses in those circumstances
where the parties request an extension to answer.'' \26\ The Commission
notes that FINRA believes that ``the proposal would shorten the time it
takes for such arbitrations to conclude and, thereby, make the forum
more efficient and the case administration process more expeditious for
investors.'' \27\ The Commission also notes that currently, ``parties
often jointly request that the ODR Director send the list or lists
before the last answer due date deadline.'' \28\ The Commission further
notes that all five commenters were supportive of the proposal.\29\
Taking into consideration FINRA's views and the commenters' unanimous
support, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Commission believes that the
proposal will help protect investors and the public interest by
streamlining the arbitration process by concluding the

arbitrator selection process at an earlier date. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the approach proposed by FINRA is appropriate
and designed to protect investors and the public interest, consistent
with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act. For these reasons, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Notice at 22364.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ See Caruso Letter, Bakhtiari Letter; Gitomer Letter; PIABA
Letter; Gomez Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \30\ that the proposal (SR-FINRA-2017-009), be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13104 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52183-52185]
[DOCID:fr12se07-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56357; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Establish Transaction Fees for Credit Default Basket
Options

September 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the

``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 29, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as
one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by
CBOE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to establish fees
for transactions in Credit Default Basket Options (``CDBOs''). The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), 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, CBOE 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently received approval to list and trade CDBOs,
which are cash-settled call options based on the occurrence of a Credit
Event in one, some, or all of the Basket Components.\5\ The purpose of
this rule change is to establish transaction fees for CDBOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56275 (August 17,
2007), 72 FR 47097 (August 22, 2007) (order approving SR-CBOE-2007-
26 to list and trade CDBOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction fees shall be $0.20 per contract for Market-Makers,
Designated Primary Market-Makers, and Remote Market-Makers; $0.20 per
contract for member firm proprietary transactions; $0.25 per contract
for manually executed broker-dealer transactions; $0.45 per contract
for electronically executed broker-dealer transactions (i.e.,
executions of broker-dealer orders that are automatically executed on
the CBOE Hybrid Trading System);\6\ and $0.85 per contract for public
customer transactions. In addition, the Exchange's Liquidity Provider
Sliding Scale\7\ shall apply to transaction fees in CDBOs, but the
Exchange's Marketing Fee\8\ shall not apply. The Exchange believes the
rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new
products to the marketplace that are competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Broker-dealer manual and electronic transaction fees will
apply to executed broker-dealer orders (orders with ``B'' origin
code), non-member market-maker orders (orders with ``N'' origin
code), and orders from specialists in the underlying security
(orders with ``Y'' origin code).
    \7\ See Footnote 10 of the Fees Schedule.
    \8\ See Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60
days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-101. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-101 and should be
submitted on or before October 3, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17938 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


 	Environmental Technology Council

 1112 16th Street NW   (   Suite 420   (   Washington DC 20036   (
(202) 783-0870

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________

Electronically submitted

July 10, 2008

Ms. Rhonda Minnick

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (5302P)

Washington DC 20460

Re:	Lack of Lab Standard for M-Cumenyl-Methyl Carbamate

Dear Ms. Minnick:

	The Environmental Technology Council (ETC) is the trade association
that represents most of the commercial hazardous waste companies in the
United States.  Recently, ETC member firms have contacted EPA regarding
a serious problem with testing under the RCRA land disposal restrictions
program, and the ETC respectfully requests emergency action to address
this problem.

	We have discovered that no commercial laboratories are able to perform
analysis on m-cumenyl-methyl carbamate because lab standards for this
compound are no longer available to calibrate the equipment.  We even
checked with EPA field offices and determined that this carbamate
compound is no longer available in the EPA standards repository.  Very
few laboratories were able to test for this compound in the past, and
now there are no laboratories that can perform the testing.  Test
America, one of the major testing laboratories in the U.S., has
confirmed that they can no longer test for this compound.  After a
significant amount of research into possible suppliers, we have
determined that the laboratories’ assessment of the situation is
accurate.

	As you know, m-cumenyl-methyl carbamate is listed as P202 with an LDR
treatment standard of 1.4 mg/kg.  This compound is also identified as an
Underlying Hazardous Constituent.  Without an available standard,
companies cannot test for compliance with this LDR treatment
requirement.  We should note that several ETC member incineration
facilities routinely tested for m-cumenyl-methyl carbamate, before the
lab standard became unavailable, in monthly samples of ash and filter
cake, and have never found a detectable level of this carbamate.

	The ETC has surveyed all of its member companies.  All companies
confirm that the commercial labs that conduct LDR testing have stated
that they cannot test for m-cumenyl-methyl carbamate.  There are no
available options for treating and demonstrating compliance with the LDR
treatment standard for this waste.  The impossibility of demonstrating
compliance means that wastes identified as P202 or wastes that contain
m-cumenyl-methyl carbamate as an underlying hazardous constituent cannot
be treated and properly disposed.

	This situation is similar to a previous occasion in 1998 when EPA
discovered that test standards were not available for certain
carbamates, after a long list of carbamates was added to the LDR
treatment standards.  In an emergency rulemaking, EPA revised the
treatment requirements to allow combustion and wastewater treatment as
alternative technologies for those carbamates so that testing for these
individual constituents was not required.  63 Fed. Reg. 47411 (Sept. 4,
1998).  This rule provides that treatment standards for the wastes
specified as P185, P191, P197, U364, U394, and U395 – the carbamate
compounds for which no standard was available for equipment calibration
– may be satisfied by treating the waste by combustion (CMBST) for
nonwastewaters, and by biodegradation (BIODG), carbon adsorption (CARBN,
chemical oxidation (CHOXD), or combustion for wastewaters.  40 CFR
268.40(j).

	The ETC requests that EPA issue an emergency rule that adds P202 to the
list of carbamate compounds in 40 CFR 269.40(j), or take such other
action as the Agency deems necessary to resolve this problem.  Thank you
for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,

David R. Case

Executive Director

 PAGE   1

Ms. Rhonda Minnick

July 10, 2008

Page  PAGE   2

 PAGE

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   1

 PAGE

 PAGE   2